Title
Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. and/or vs. Ships UK Ltd. vs. Nicolas F. Bobiles
Case
G.R. No. 259982
Decision Date
Oct 28, 2024
Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. sought to challenge the CA decision awarding Bobiles total permanent disability but the court upheld that Bobiles meets the criteria for permanent disability per the Labor Code.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 109248)

Background of the Case

The petitioner companies, POMI and V. Ships UK Ltd., were involved in a dispute with respondent Nicolas F. Bobiles regarding his claim for total permanent disability compensation. Bobiles worked as a pumpman on the vessel Nordic Vega, and his employment contract, which had a basic salary of USD 764.00, was approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). After sustaining a back injury on January 27, 2017, Bobiles was diagnosed with severe lumbar spine injuries, and his capacity to work as a seaman was significantly impacted.

Injury and Medical Treatment

Upon inspection of the vessel’s equipment, Bobiles experienced a back injury that led to debilitating pain. Despite undergoing medical treatment and therapies both abroad and in the Philippines, he continued to suffer from severe stiffness and pain that rendered him unable to fulfill his duties as a seaman. A series of medical evaluations confirmed deteriorating conditions, ultimately leading to a second opinion that deemed Bobiles permanently disabled and unfit for seafarer duties.

NCMB Decision and Appeals

The National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) ruled in favor of Bobiles, determining his disability was total and permanent, and awarded him USD 102,308 for disability compensation along with attorney's fees. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals modified the NCMB’s award, reducing the compensation to USD 60,000, emphasizing that the company's physician delayed issuing a final assessment, thus prompting legal recognition of Bobiles' permanent disability.

Petitioners' Arguments

In their petition to the Supreme Court, POMI and V. Ships UK Ltd. contended that Bobiles failed to pursue the resolution process involving a third doctor and that the delay in the medical assessment was justified. They further argued against Bobiles’ claim for attorney’s fees, stating that the absence of bad faith from their part should preclude such an award.

Judicial Interpretation of Attorney's Fees

The Supreme Court clarified that under Article 111 of the Labor Code, attorney’s fees are only recoverable in cases involving unlawful withholding of wages, which was not applicable here as the case pertained to disability compensation. Additionally, Article 2208 of the Civil Code was examined, specifically regarding recovery of attorney’s fees. The court noted that the provisions cited by the lower courts for awarding attorney’s fees—spe

...continue reading

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