Case Digest (G.R. No. 193628)
Facts:
Splash Philippines, Inc., Lorenzo Estrada, Taiyo Sangyo Trading and Marine Service, Ltd. (TST Panama S.A.) and M/V Harutamou v. Ronulfo G. Ruizo, G.R. No. 193628, March 19, 2014, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner-employers are Splash Philippines, Inc. (a manning agency), its president Lorenzo Estrada, the foreign principal Taiyo Sangyo Trading and Marine Service, Ltd. (TST Panama S.A.) and the vessel M/V Harutamou; respondent Ronulfo G. Ruizo is a former chief cook who sued for disability compensation, damages and attorneys’ fees.
On February 4, 2005, Ruizo signed a nine-month POEA-SEC employment contract to serve as chief cook aboard the M/V Harutamou. On or about December 13, 2005, while on duty, he developed lumbar and groin pain, was treated in Australia and diagnosed with a kidney stone condition; he was repatriated to the Philippines on December 21, 2005 upon completion of his contract. The company-designated physician, Dr. Nicomedes Cruz, treated him and recommended diagnostic studies and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), which the petitioners paid for; Ruizo underwent ESWL on January 19, 2007, reported for follow-up on February 5, 2007, but failed to return for a repeat ESWL.
While still under treatment, Ruizo filed a complaint on May 26, 2006 alleging entitlement to disability benefits under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between his union AMOSUP and the employers. On May 7, 2007 — without informing the company physician or agency — he consulted Dr. Efren Vicaldo, who gave a one-day examination and assessed an Impediment Grade VII (41.8%). Ruizo contended he was unable to work for more than 120 days.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint on June 29, 2007, finding Ruizo’s one-page unsigned excerpt of a purported CBA insufficient to prove coverage and ruling that the absence of a disability rating from the company physician — attributable to Ruizo’s failure to continue treatment — defeated his claim. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) denied Ruizo’s appeal in a decision dated June 3, 2008 and denied his motion for reconsideration. Ruizo then secured relief from the Court of Appeals (CA) by petition for certiorari.
The CA, in a decision dated August 25, 2009 (resolution September 13, 2010 denying reconsideration), set aside the NLRC rulings and awarded Ruizo permanent total disability compensation of US$100,000 under the CBA, moral and exemplary damages of P10,000 each, and P10,000 attorneys’ fees, applying the so-called 120-day rule and ad...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the NLRC and Labor Arbiter findings?
- Was Ruizo’s employment covered by an AMOSUP/IMEC TCCC CBA such that CBA benefits could be awarded?
- Was Ruizo entitled to permanent total disability benefits by reason of being unable to work for more than 120 days despite lacking a company-designated physician’s disability assessment?
- Were the awards of moral and exemplary dama...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)