Case Digest (G.R. No. 210307)
Facts:
Tradephil Shipping Agencies, Inc./Gregorio F. Ortega, petitioners, vs. Dante F. Dela Cruz, respondent, G.R. No. 210307, February 22, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court. This is a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals’ June 28, 2013 Decision (as amended December 4, 2013) that set aside the NLRC’s April 2, 2012 Decision and May 8, 2012 Resolution in NLRC LAC No. (OFW-M) 01-000024-12.Petitioner Tradephil engaged respondent Dante F. Dela Cruz as a seafarer in July 2009; after successive contracts he served as Able Seaman with a basic monthly salary of US$520. In July 2010 he developed left scrotal pain, was evaluated aboard and in Paranagua, Brazil (diagnosed as varicocele), and was repatriated to the Philippines on September 3, 2010. Company-designated physician Dr. Esther G. Go diagnosed “suspicious varicocele, left”; Dela Cruz underwent bilateral varicocelectomy on September 23, 2010 and was subsequently followed by company-designated urologist Dr. Darwin Lim, who on December 29, 2010 assessed an interim Grade 12—slight residual disorder—and scheduled reevaluation on January 4, 2011, which Dela Cruz missed.
On January 6, 2011, Dela Cruz filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for permanent and total disability benefits and other reliefs. On January 7, 2011 he sought a second opinion from Dr. Manuel C. Jacinto, who declared him totally and permanently disabled after a single consultation. On January 17, 2011 Dr. Lim performed repeat studies and issued a certification declaring Dela Cruz fit to work; Dela Cruz refused at that time to sign the fitness certificate.
The Labor Arbiter (July 29, 2011) denied the claim for permanent disability, reasoning that in the face of conflicting medical opinions Dela Cruz should have agreed to a third-doctor referral under Section 20(B) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC); the LA awarded sick wages (US$2,080) and attorney’s fees (10% of sick wages). The NLRC, however, in its April 2, 2012 Decision modified the LA ruling by deleting the award for sick wages and attorney’s fees and stayed the LA’s finding that Dela Cruz was not entitled to disability benefits; it relied on jurisprudence (notably Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Service, Inc.) recognizing that the 120-day temporary total disability period may be extended up to 240 days. Dela Cruz’s motion for reconsideration was denied on May 8, 2012.
Dela Cruz filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA (June 28, 2013) reversed the NLRC, concluded the 120-day rule in Section 20(B) of the POEA-SEC ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the doctrine enunciated in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Service, Inc. (i.e., that the 120-day temporary total disability rule may be extended to 240 days in appropriate circumstances) apply to seafarers in this case?
- Is respondent Dante F. Dela Cruz entitled to total and perma...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)