G.R. No. 223035 - Sunit vs. OSM Maritime Services, Inc.

Petitioner Reynaldo Y. Sunit was hired by respondent OSM Maritime Services, Inc.—the local agent of respondent DOF OSM Maritime Services A/S—to work onboard the vessel Skandi Texel as an Able Body Seaman for three (3) months with a monthly salary of $689.
Incorporated into his employment contract were the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and the NIS AMOSUP Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

While working onboard, petitioner fell from the vessel’s tank approximately 4.5 meters high, sustaining a broken right femur.
He was immediately taken to a hospital in the Netherlands for initial treatment before being repatriated to Manila on October 6, 2012.

Upon arrival in Manila, petitioner underwent a post-employment medical examination and subsequent treatment at the Metropolitan Medical Center. The company-designated physician diagnosed him with a fractured right femur that had undergone intramedullary nailing.
On January 13, 2013, after 92 days of treatment, the company-designated doctor issued an interim disability report assigning a Grade 10 disability.

Dissatisfied with the company-designated doctor’s Grade 10 assessment, petitioner secured a second opinion from Dr. Venancio P. Garduce, whose report on February 6, 2013, recommended a Grade 3 disability.
The company-designated doctor later rendered a final assessment on February 15, 2013, again assigning a Grade 10 disability.

During the pendency of the Labor Arbiter (LA) proceedings, both parties agreed to consult a third doctor, Dr. Lyndon L. Bathan, for an independent evaluation.
Dr. Bathan’s Medical Certificate, issued on February 17, 2014, recommended a Grade 9 disability and further stated that petitioner was “not yet fit to work” and should undergo rehabilitation.

The Labor Arbiter, relying on Dr. Bathan’s Grade 9 assessment, awarded petitioner disability benefits amounting to $13,060 on April 28, 2014.
Petitioner, unsatisfied with this award, escalated the dispute to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which on August 29, 2014, modified the award to grant permanent and total disability benefits of $150,000 based on the failure of the company-designated doctor to issue a final conclusive assessment within the required period.
Respondents subsequently questioned the NLRC decision via a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA, in its June 10, 2015 Decision, reversed the NLRC ruling and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s award based on the view that the 240-day period for assessment applied only to the company-designated doctor, not to an independent third doctor's assessment.
The CA maintained that since the company-designated physician rendered a final definitive Grade 10 assessment within the prescribed period, petitioner was not entitled to a total and permanent disability benefit despite being unfit to work for an extended period.
Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its February 10, 2016 Resolution, prompting him to petition the Supreme Court for review.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed a serious error of law in awarding petitioner a partial disability benefit (Grade 9) as opposed to permanent and total disability benefits.
Whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioner’s claims for damages and attorney’s fees in light of the alleged bad faith actions of the respondents.
The broader question of whether petitioner, given his sustained incapacity and the prolonged period he remained unfit for work, should be considered permanently and totally disabled despite the company-designated doctor’s timely Grade 10 assessment.