Title
Rickmers Marine Agency Phils., Inc. vs. San Jose
Case
G.R. No. 220949
Decision Date
Jul 23, 2018
Seafarer diagnosed with retinal detachment during employment; deemed permanently disabled after company physician's delayed assessment. Awarded $60,000, excluding attorney's fees and unpaid salaries.
seafarer
retinal detachment
total permanent disability benefits
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 173268)

Facts:

  • Employment and Deployment
    • Complainant Edmund R. San Jose was engaged by Rickmers Marine Agency Phils., Inc. and/or George C. Guerrero on behalf of their foreign principal, Global Management Limited.
    • He was deployed aboard the vessel MV Maersk Edinburg under a nine-month Standard POEA Employment Contract as a wiper with a basic monthly salary of US$420.00 and an addendum providing for an additional US$40.00.
    • Prior to deployment, San Jose underwent necessary medical examinations and was declared fit for duty.
  • Onset of Medical Condition and Initial Medical Interventions
    • In February 2011, while onboard, San Jose experienced loss or impairment of vision in his left eye and immediately reported his condition to the ship's captain.
    • A medical examination took place at a port of call in Singapore, during which he was prescribed eye drops.
    • Despite the lack of improvement, San Jose continued his journey.
    • He was later examined in Le Havre, France on February 28, 2011 by an ophthalmologist who diagnosed retinal detachment/tear affecting the macula and recommended medical repatriation.
  • Medical Treatment in the Philippines
    • Upon his arrival in Manila in March 2011, San Jose was examined by the respondent’s designated physician, Dr. Natalio G. Alegre II at St. Luke’s Hospital.
    • The physician diagnosed him with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with proliferative vitreoretinopathy, lattice degeneration, and myopia in the left eye, recommending surgical intervention.
    • San Jose underwent an initial surgery, followed by confinement for three days.
    • A second surgical operation was scheduled for September 2011 to further address his condition.
    • A medical certificate dated July 4, 2011 was issued, giving him a Partial Temporary Disability Rating.
    • Despite surgical interventions, his left eye’s condition remained unimproved, leading him to file his complaint on February 14, 2012.
  • Procedural History and Rulings in Lower Fora
    • Labor Arbiter (LA) Decision (June 25, 2012)
      • The LA ruled in favor of San Jose, awarding him US$60,000.00 for permanent total disability benefits plus attorney’s fees of 10% of the total award.
      • The ruling was based on the fact that his illness, which occurred onboard and during the employment contract, was compensable and that he did not resume his duties for more than 120 days.
    • National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Proceedings
      • On February 7, 2013, the NLRC reversed the LA ruling.
      • The NLRC noted that neither the respondent’s appointed physician nor the company-designated physician provided a disability grading in their medical certificates; both certified him as “fit to work.”
      • Consequently, the NLRC limited the benefits to the payment of salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract (US$420.00) and financial assistance of P50,000.00.
      • The NLRC denied San Jose’s motion for reconsideration via its Resolution on March 15, 2013.
    • Court of Appeals (CA) Proceedings
      • Petitioned by San Jose, the CA reinstated the LA decision in its Assailed Decision.
      • The CA held that substantial evidence supported San Jose’s claim of total permanent disability based on his inability to perform work for over 120 days.
      • The CA also affirmed the award of attorney’s fees, and maintained the NLRC’s award of unpaid salaries and financial assistance, though these later became contentious.
  • Petition for Review on Certiorari and Contentions of the Parties
    • Petitioners (Rickmers Marine Agency Phils., Inc., Global Management Limited, and/or George C. Guerrero)
      • Elevated the case before the Court, arguing the CA committed reversible error.
      • Asserted that San Jose’s illness was not work-related because the company-designated physician had certified him as “fit to work” on November 21, 2011.
      • Contended that exceeding the 120/240-day period does not automatically entitle a seafarer to disability compensation.
      • Argued against the awards for US$420.00 (salaries), P50,000.00 (financial assistance), and attorneys’ fees.
    • Respondent San Jose
      • Filed his Comment asserting entitlement to total permanent disability benefits.
      • Argued that the company-designated physician’s assessment on November 21, 2011 was issued 263 days after repatriation, thus falling outside the 240-day limit.
      • Claimed that the injury (rhegmatogenous retinal detachment) was work-related as it occurred onboard the vessel and during the employment contract.
      • Supported his claim by referencing Section 32-A(18) of the POEA-SEC, which lists retinal detachment as an occupational disease.
      • Cited a progress report by the company-designated physician indicating that heavy lifting on an elongated, nearsighted eye provoked the detachment.
      • Insisted on entitlement to the US$420.00 for unpaid salaries, P50,000.00 in financial assistance, and attorney’s fees.

Issues:

  • Entitlement to Total Permanent Disability Benefits
    • Whether respondent San Jose is entitled to total permanent disability benefits given that his condition was assessed beyond the mandatory 120/240-day period for company-designated physicians to render a final disability grading.
    • Whether the occurrence of a “fit to work” certification (issued on November 21, 2011) negates the claim of permanent total disability.
    • Whether the seafarer’s prolonged treatment and failure of the company-designated physician to issue an assessment within the prescribed period lead to a conclusive determination of total and permanent disability.
  • Additional Awards
    • Whether the award for attorney’s fees is justified given the contention that they should not essentially act as a premium on the right to sue.
    • Whether the additional awards covering the unpaid portion of the employment contract (US$420.00) and the P50,000.00 financial assistance for repatriation and medical treatment have any basis in law or the terms of the POEA-SEC.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms