Title
Magsaysay Maritime Corp. vs. Zanoria
Case
G.R. No. 233071
Decision Date
Sep 2, 2020
Seafarer diagnosed with permanent eye conditions deemed unfit for work; awarded disability benefits despite subsequent employment, upheld by courts.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 233071)

Facts

Jose Elizalde B. Zanoria was employed as a Chief Mate aboard the vessel Brilliant Sky with a monthly salary of $1,427. On March 27, 2014, while in Atlanta, USA, he was diagnosed with various eye conditions resulting in blurred vision, which led to his medical repatriation to the Philippines. He was examined by the company-designated physician, Dr. George C. Pile, who assessed him as unfit for work due to a work-oriented medical condition. Despite undergoing surgery for a cataract, Zanoria was later declared unfit to work as a seafarer, leading to the initiation of grievance proceedings.

Proceedings and Initial Decision

Following a series of failed negotiations and the declaration of a deadlock, Zanoria filed a Notice to Arbitrate with the NCMB. The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators ruled on February 19, 2016, declaring him permanently disabled and ordering the petitioners to pay disability benefits totaling $159,914 and sickness allowances.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Petitioners filed for a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court, contesting the award of disability benefits and sickness allowances. The CA affirmed the ruling of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators on March 7, 2017, but modified the permanent disability benefit to $60,000 while sustaining the rest of the original decision.

Supreme Court Issue

The central issues presented to the Supreme Court were whether the CA committed serious errors in awarding total and permanent disability benefits, sickness allowances, and attorney's fees to the respondent. Additionally, the petitioners argued that the respondent had taken subsequent employment while his claim was pending, which should negate his disability claim.

Findings of the Court

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the CA and the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, stating that the question of whether the CA erred was largely factual and not within the purview of the Supreme Court's review under Rule 45. It emphasized that the partial disability assessment presented by the company-designated physician contradicted the declaration of unfitness for work, effectively reclassifying the condition to a permanent disability.

Medical Certification and Permanent Disability

The Court noted the inconsistency in Dr. Pile's medical certification, where a partial disability grading conflicted with the overall declaration of being unfit for work. It clarified that such inconsistencies lead to the conclusion of permanent total disability under prevailing law an

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.