G.R. No. 239221 - Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc., Nordis Tankers Marine A/S, and Redentor Anaya vs. Samuel B. Bernarte

Case Summary (G.R. No. 239221)

Case Background

This case involves a petition for review of the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) ruling that the petitioners are liable to the respondent for total and permanent disability benefits following an injury incurred while on duty.

Employment Details

The respondent was hired as an Able Seaman under a seven-month contract with a salary of USD 594.00, which was supplemented by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Following his pre-employment medical examination, he was declared "Fit for Sea Duty" and commenced his duties aboard the MT Clipper Karen.

Incident and Medical Findings

On September 6, 2013, the respondent suffered a back injury while performing his duties. Subsequent medical examinations confirmed he had a serious spinal condition, leading the shore-side physician to declare him "UNFIT FOR WORK" upon the vessel's arrival in South India. He was repatriated back to the Philippines on September 17, 2013.

Continuous Medical Evaluations

The respondent underwent several medical evaluations, including consultations with the company-designated physician, Dr. Natalia Alegre. Despite treatment and physical therapy, the respondent showed no improvement, leading to a recommended spine surgery which he allegedly refused.

Labor Arbiter's Ruling

The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the respondent, deeming him entitled to total and permanent disability benefits based on the findings that his injury was work-related. The LA also noted that a discrepancy existed regarding the shipmaster's reporting of the injury, which favored the respondent's claim.

NLRC's Affirmation

The NLRC upheld the LA's ruling, indicating that the absence of clear evidence denying the occurrence of the injury during the respondent's employment reinforced the claim for benefits under the CBA and the POEA-SEC.

Court of Appeals' Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC's decision but made a modification regarding the basis for computing disability benefits. It concluded that while the respondent was entitled to benefits, these should be based on the POEA-SEC rather than the CBA due to the lack of concrete evidence establishing the injury as an accident.

Petitioners' Claims

The petitioners argued that Dr. Alegre's assessment should have been given more weight and that the respondent did not prove he was unfit for work. They contended that any claim for total and permanent disability should be based on the company's physician's assessment.

Respondent's Counterarguments

The respondent contended that the final assessment by Dr. Alegre was not definitive and highlighted the lack of clarity surrounding the cause of his said injury. He asserted that his total and permanent disability should be acknowledged and sought the maximum benefits.

Court’s Examination and Ruling

The Supreme

Supreme Court E-Library