Title
Jebsens Maritime, Inc. vs. Pasamba
Case
G.R. No. 220904
Decision Date
Sep 25, 2019
Seafarer Pasamba, diagnosed with sinusitis and hearing loss, was declared fit to work within 240 days, denying permanent disability benefits but granting sickness allowance and attorney’s fees.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 220904)

Facts of the Case

On November 19, 2009, Ruperto S. Pasamba (respondent) was hired by Jebsens Maritime, Inc., acting for their foreign principal, Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft, to serve as an Able Seaman for six months. Respondent boarded the vessel CMS Dusseldorf Express on December 21, 2009. Beginning January 24, 2010, he developed various health issues, including a clogged nose and dizziness. A consultation with a shore physician in Japan on February 4, 2010, resulted in a diagnosis of sinusitis, myringitis, vascular headache, and unstable angina, prompting his immediate repatriation for treatment, which occurred on February 5, 2010.

Upon returning, respondent consulted company-designated doctors on February 6, 2010, leading to a diagnosis of polysinusitis and bilateral mastoiditis. The respondent underwent mastoid surgery on February 25, 2010, and again on May 14, 2010. By July 9, 2010, he was declared "fit for work" after a recovery period, notwithstanding that he experienced temporary hearing loss post-surgery. In November 2011, more than a year later, respondent gained re-employment as an Able Seaman through a different agency.

Procedural History

On July 31, 2012, respondent consulted an independent doctor who diagnosed him with moderate to profound mixed hearing loss, prompting him to seek permanent disability benefits, leading to a complaint filed on August 13, 2012. The Labor Arbiter ruled against him, finding him fit for work based on the earlier company doctors' assessments and noting his re-employment as indicative of fitness. However, he was awarded sickness allowance and attorney's fees.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, asserting his entitlement to permanent disability benefits due to his inability to work for over 120 days. This ruling emphasized that the declaration of fitness by company-designated doctors after the 120-day mark did not negate his claim.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC's ruling, agreeing that respondent's inability to work beyond the 120 days resulted in a consideration of permanent total disability. The CA noted that the sickness allowance was appropriately modified to include days not initially covered by either tribunal below, affirming attorney's fees.

Petitioners’ Argument

Petitioners appealed, contesting the determination of permanent disability based solely on the timeline of absence from work post-repatriation. They argued that the initial declaration of fitness for work following the company's medical assessment should take precedence. They also claimed entitlement to sickness allowance limited to 130 days, arguing reliance on the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

The Court’s Ruling

The Court determined that respondent was indeed not entitled to permanent disability benefits. It elaborated that the length of time off work does not alone qualify a seafarer for benefits without a final assessment from the company-designated physician within the statutory periods. The company's doctors had justifiable reasons for not issuing a rapacious evaluation until later, predominantly based on the nature of respondent's medical condition, including extended treatment and recovery periods.

Despite denying the c

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.