Case Digest (G.R. No. 209302)
Facts:
Alone Amar P. Tagle v. Anglo‑Eastern Crew Management, Phils., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 209302, July 09, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Alone Amar P. Tagle (petitioner) sued his manning agency Anglo‑Eastern Crew Management, Phils., Inc., its foreign principal Anglo‑Eastern Crew Management (Asia), and company president Capt. Gregorio B. Sialsa (respondents) for permanent total disability benefits, medical expenses, damages and attorneys’ fees after suffering an on‑board collapse and subsequent neck and back pathology.Petitioner was hired June 16, 2008 and boarded MV NV Al Ishaa as 3rd Engineer; on July 19, 2008 he was found unconscious in the engine room, treated in Karachi, repatriated and admitted at Metropolitan Medical Center where initial diagnoses included cervical and lumbar spondylosis, chronic L5 spondylosis and Grade 1 spondylolisthesis. Company‑designated physicians repeatedly treated and reevaluated him; on November 6, 2008 they recommended a tentative disability grading of Grade 12 (neck) and Grade 11 (chest‑trunk‑spine) but required further follow‑up and re‑evaluation.
Dissatisfied with respondents’ settlement offer based on the company physicians’ tentative gradings, petitioner sought a private physician, Dr. Nicanor F. Escutin, who, after a single examination and without corroborating diagnostic tests, concluded petitioner suffered permanent disability and was unfit for any seafaring capacity. Petitioner filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits on February 11, 2009.
Labor Arbiter Lilia S. Savari, in a Decision dated November 27, 2009, awarded petitioner permanent total disability benefits of $60,000 and attorneys’ fees but denied sick wages and damages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in an August 31, 2010 Decision, modified the award by lowering the grading to Grade 11 (thus awarding $7,456 or its peso equivalent) and deleted attorneys’ fees for lack of legal basis; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a November 15, 2010 Resolution. Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petiti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the petition present purely factual questions precluding Supreme Court review under Rule 45?
- Was petitioner entitled to an award of permanent total disability benefits?
- Was petitioner’s alleged disability compensable as work‑related under the POEA Standard Employment Contract and applica...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)