G.R. No. 93712 - People vs. William y Banega

United Philippine Lines, Inc. (UPL) hired Leobert S. Ramos as Assistant Cook on March 13, 2013 for its foreign principal, Holland America Line Westours, Inc.
His contract was for a period of 10 months with a basic monthly salary of US$300.00.
Ramos embarked on the vessel "MS ZUIDERDAM" on March 27, 2013 but was medically repatriated shortly thereafter, arriving back on April 10, 2013.

While performing his tasks, Ramos experienced severe pain in his left shoulder and reported it to his superior.
He was advised to visit the infirmary where the ship doctor prescribed pain relievers and rest.
Subsequent developments included:

A recommendation for off-shore consultation leading to his medical repatriation.
Post-disembarkation, Ramos reported for a medical check-up with UPL and was referred to Shiphealth, Inc. where he began physical therapy.
Due to lack of improvement, he was also referred to the University Physicians Medical Center, Inc. for further tests; however, the results were not provided to him.
His quest for proper documentation led him to revisit Shiphealth, Inc. and later seek services at Seamen's Hospital (from September 10 to October 8, 2013), where arthroscopic surgery was recommended.
A consultation with Dr. Cesar H. Garcia, an orthopedic specialist, confirmed that Ramos was unfit to work as a seaman due to his shoulder injury.

Ramos asserted that he was forced to secure independent medical consultations because UPL and Shiphealth, Inc. did not furnish him with his medical records.
He argued entitlement to permanent and total disability benefits, citing that the same left shoulder injury had previously led to his medical repatriation in May 2011 despite a clearance for duty.

Petitioners maintained that on June 14, 2013, Ramos was assessed by the company-designated physician with a Grade 10 rating describing "ankylosis of the shoulder joint not permitting arm to be raised above a level with a shoulder and/or irreducible fracture or faulty union collar bone."
They contended that based on the company-designated physician’s assessment, Ramos was only entitled to disability benefits corresponding to a Grade 10 rating (US$12,090.00).
Petitioners further argued that Ramos failed to show that the assessment was tainted by bias or irregularities, and that he did not follow the proper dispute resolution procedure of referring the conflicting assessments to a third doctor.

The LA determined that the work-related nature of the injury was undisputed and that the sole issue was the quantum of disability benefits.
Finding that this was the second occurrence of medical repatriation for the same injury, the LA ruled in favor of total and permanent disability benefits, rejecting the Grade 10 classification.
The LA also awarded attorney's fees pursuant to Article 2208 of the Civil Code, ordering petitioners to pay US$60,000.00 plus additional fees.

The NLRC affirmed the LA’s ruling and noted that Ramos was only made aware of the company-designated physician’s findings when petitioners filed their position paper.
The NLRC emphasized that Ramos was thereby deprived of the opportunity to contest the assessment, justifying the reliance on his own doctor’s evaluation.

The CA denied the petition, affirming both the LA and NLRC findings.
The CA reiterated that total and permanent disability entails the inability to earn wages in one’s customary or similar kinds of work, a criterion met by Ramos given his ongoing injury beyond the standard 120 or 240 days period for assessment.
The CA maintained that Ramos was entitled to total and permanent benefits and also left intact the award of attorney's fees.

Petitioners later filed motions for reconsideration at both the NLRC and the CA, which were denied.
The present petition for review on certiorari challenges these decisions, particularly contesting the reliance on the seafarer’s failure to receive proper notification of the company-designated physician’s assessment.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed palpable error by affirming the NLRC’s award of permanent/total disability benefits to Ramos despite the company-designated physician’s final assessment of Grade 10.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in basing the award of permanent disability benefits solely on Ramos’s claim that he failed to perform his normal work for more than 120 days.
Whether the award of attorney’s fees amounting to 10% of the judgment award is justified, given that petitioners’ denial of Ramos’s claims was allegedly based on justifiable grounds.