Case Digest (G.R. No. 239221)
Facts:
Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc., Nordis Tankers Marine A/S, and Redentor Anaya v. Samuel B. Bernarte, G.R. No. 239221, April 28, 2021, Supreme Court Third Division, Delos Santos, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Seacrest Maritime (for principal Nordis Tankers) hired respondent Samuel B. Bernarte as an Able Seaman under a seven-month contract covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). On September 6, 2013, while aboard the MT Clipper Karen, respondent alleged he was struck by a metal hatch and thereafter suffered recurrent severe back pain; after an examination by a shore-side physician in South India on September 12, 2013 (Dr. Balaji), he was declared “UNFIT FOR WORK” and repatriated to the Philippines on September 17, 2013.
Upon repatriation respondent was seen by the company-designated physician, Dr. Natalia Alegre (St. Luke’s Medical Center). Imaging (an MRI on September 12, 2013 and a second MRI on January 16, 2014) showed disc prolapse and related degenerative findings. Dr. Alegre provided medications and physical therapy, and on January 18, 2014 (121 days after reporting) issued an initial assessment recommending surgery and assigning Disability Grade 8 under the POEA-SEC; on January 23, 2014 (126 days) Dr. Alegre issued a purported final progress report asserting “maximum medical cure” and again assigning Grade 8, stating the patient had declined surgery.
Convinced he was totally and permanently disabled, respondent filed a Complaint with the Labor Arbiter (LA) on March 24, 2014 for total and permanent disability benefits, damages and attorney’s fees. During conference petitioners offered payment computed under Disability Grade 8 (POEA-SEC) which respondent rejected. The LA (Decision, Oct. 15, 2014) found an accidental injury and awarded total and permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance and attorney’s fees, holding petitioners jointly and severally liable. The NLRC affirmed the LA (Decision, Jan. 27, 2015). Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied relief but modified computation, holding that respondent was not shown to have suffered an accident and therefore benefits should be computed under the 2010 POEA-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), Se...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court review conflicting factual findings when the Court of Appeals' findings differ from those of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC?
- Is respondent entitled to total and permanent disability benefits under the law given the company-designated physician’s assessments and the lapse of the 120-day period?
- Did respondent’s injury result from an accident such that the CBA, rather than the POEA-SEC, governs his disability benefits?
- Is respondent entitled to the deficiency in sickness allowance, m...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)