Case Digest (G.R. No. 235730)
Facts:
This case revolves around Boneres P. Vencer (respondent) against Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc., Golar Management UK, Ltd., and Emmanuel de Vera (petitioners). Respondent was employed as an able seaman on September 20, 2013, under a nine-month Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) approved employment contract. Prior to deployment, he underwent a Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) and was declared fit to work. On November 7, 2013, he boarded the vessel "Golar Grand" at the port of Quintero, Chile. In June 2014, Vencer went missing, prompting a search that led to the discovery of severely injured crew members, Bosun Jose Asuncion and Fitter Marcelino Agustin, who reported being attacked by Vencer with a hammer. Following these events, Vencer was detained onboard until he was repatriated on July 7, 2014, to Manila, where he was diagnosed with schizophrenia.
During treatment by the company-designated physician, Dr. Esther Go, it was concluded t
Case Digest (G.R. No. 235730)
Facts:
- Employment and Deployment
- On September 20, 2013, respondent Boneres P. Vencer was employed as an able seaman by petitioner Wilhelmsen-Smith Bell Manning, Inc. for and on behalf of its foreign principal, Golar Management UK, Ltd. under a 9‑month POEA‑approved employment contract.
- Prior to deployment, respondent underwent a Pre‑Employment Medical Examination (PEME) and was declared "fit to work."
- On November 7, 2013, respondent boarded the vessel "Golar Grand" at the port of Quintero, Chile to resume his sea duties.
- Incident Leading to Detention and Medical Evaluation
- In June 2014, respondent was reported missing during his shipboard duties; a general alarm was sounded to locate him.
- During the search, seafarers Bosun Jose Asuncion and Fitter Marcelino Agustin were found injured and bleeding, with their statement indicating that respondent attacked them with a hammer.
- Respondent was detained on board until his repatriation on July 7, 2014, when he was brought to Manila via air ambulance.
- Medical Diagnosis and Subsequent Treatment
- Upon repatriation, respondent was admitted to Cardinal Santos Medical Center and diagnosed with schizophrenia.
- Transferred to Marine Medical Services, he was examined and treated by Dr. Esther Go from July 4, 2014 to November 6, 2014.
- A Medical Report dated July 10, 2014 confirmed the diagnosis of schizophrenia.
- On July 17, 2014, the company‑designated specialist opined that respondent’s illness was not work‑related, attributing schizophrenia to multifactorial causes (genetic and neurodevelopmental components).
- On November 6, 2014, Dr. Go advised that further treatment would be at respondent’s own expense.
- On December 22, 2014, respondent sought a second opinion from Dr. Cecilia Sarayno at the Western Visayas Medical Center, which affirmed the diagnosis of schizophrenia.
- Claim for Disability Benefits and Alleged Work‑Related Claims
- Respondent claimed total and permanent disability benefits, asserting that his schizophrenia was work‑related due to the stressful and abusive work environment onboard.
- Allegations included:
- Crew members allegedly mixing chemicals in his water and later tampering with his coffee.
- Instances of bullying such as changing the ship’s clock to force him back to duty, receiving death threats (notably from Bosun Asuncion), and other intimidating behaviors by co‑workers.
- An incident where, overwhelmed by fear stemming from these threats and bullying, respondent hid at the ship’s anchor chain for several hours.
- When found, respondent defended himself by hitting two crew members with a hammer, believing they were intent on killing him.
- Proceedings at the Labor Arbitral and NLRC Levels
- The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision on March 11, 2015, in favor of respondent by declaring his claim for disability benefits meritorious and ordering payment of US$95,949.00 plus attorney’s fees.
- On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision on October 22, 2015, holding that respondent’s illness was not work‑related and thus not compensable.
- Respondent’s motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied in a Resolution dated February 11, 2016.
- Court of Appeals Proceedings
- Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.
- On March 21, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC Decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, holding that:
- The work environment and abusive conduct onboard had likely triggered or increased the risk of respondent’s schizophrenia.
- There was no evidence of pre‑existing mental illness prior to his deployment.
- Medical findings from the company‑designated physicians supported the permanence of the mental illness, warranting total and permanent disability benefits.
- The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that was incorporated in the employment contract applied to the computation of disability benefits.
- Attorney’s fees were awarded pursuant to Article 2208 of the New Civil Code.
- Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration before the CA was denied in a Resolution dated November 9, 2017.
- Parties' Arguments
- Petitioners argued:
- Respondent’s schizophrenia was not work‑related since the company‑designated physician attributed the cause to genetic and neurodevelopmental factors.
- There was no evidence linking his work duties to the onset or aggravation of his illness.
- The PEME’s "fit to work" result indicated that the illness did not originate from his employment.
- The vessel “Golar Grand” might not be covered by the CBA, and even if it were, a Grade 1 disability rating from a reliable physician was required.
- They had already shouldered his medical expenses and paid his sickness allowance.
- Respondent contended:
- His schizophrenic disorder was directly triggered or aggravated by the stressful and abusive work environment onboard.
- The disputed presumption under Section 20(A)(4) of the POEA‑SEC required petitioners to disprove a work‑connection, which they failed to do.
- The treatment and evaluations by both the company‑designated and his chosen physicians supported his claim.
- The incorporation of the CBA in his employment contract validated the computation of his awarded disability benefits.
- The award of attorney’s fees was justified under Article 2208 of the New Civil Code.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that respondent’s schizophrenia was work‑related and, therefore, compensable.
- Analysis of the work‑environment factors and the applicability of the disputed presumption under Section 20(A)(4) of the POEA‑SEC.
- Consideration of whether the evidence of bullying, mistreatment, and the stressful conditions onboard is sufficient to link to the onset or aggravation of his mental illness.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to compute the respondent’s disability benefits.
- Examination of the expressed incorporation of the CBA in the employment contract.
- Verification of the coverage of the vessel “Golar Grand” under the said CBA.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding attorney’s fees pursuant to Article 2208 of the New Civil Code.
- Determination of whether the conditions for recovering attorney’s fees were legally and factually met in this case.
- Evaluation of the justification for awarding fees as a consequence of the petitioners’ actions or omissions.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)