G.R. No. 249344 - Westminster Seafarer Management Philippines, Inc. vs. Raz

The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The petitioner, Westminster Seafarer Management Philippines, Inc., seeks to modify the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) regarding disability benefits awarded to the respondent, Arnulfo C. Raz.
The CA ordered the petitioner to pay the respondent US$25,313.00 as Grade 9 disability benefit, along with attorney's fees and legal interest.

Respondent entered into a Contract of Employment on November 10, 2014, to work as a Fitter for the vessel NOCC Kattegat for nine months.
His duties included repairing and maintaining the vessel engine and handling heavy equipment.
On May 15, 2015, while lifting a heavy cylinder head, he suffered a shoulder injury, which worsened over time.
After being repatriated and examined, he was diagnosed with multiple shoulder issues and underwent surgery on July 8, 2015.
Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz, the company-designated physician, assessed him with a Grade 9 disability but declared him not permanently unfit to work.
A second opinion from Dr. Manuel Fidel M. Magtira declared him permanently unfit for sea duties.
Respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for total permanent disability benefits, medical reimbursement, damages, and attorney's fees.

The NCMB ruled in favor of the respondent, awarding him total and permanent disability benefits of US$129,212.00, moral damages of US$10,000.00, and attorney's fees.
The NCMB found that the respondent remained incapacitated and that the petitioner’s failure to refer him to a third doctor indicated bad faith, justifying the award of moral damages.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

The CA set aside the NCMB's decision and reduced the disability benefit award to US$25,313.00.
The CA also ordered the petitioner to pay attorney's fees and legal interest on the total award.
Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied by the CA.

The primary issues are whether the CA erred in imposing 6% legal interest on the disability benefits and awarding attorney's fees to the respondent.
The petitioner argues that it had already satisfied the judgment award and that there was no delay in payment, thus no legal interest should apply.
The petitioner also contends that the award of attorney's fees is unjustified as it acted in good faith.

The respondent maintains that his injury rendered him permanently disabled and unfit for work as a Fitter.
He asserts entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
The respondent argues that the petitioner’s failure to refer him to a third doctor demonstrates bad faith, warranting moral and exemplary damages.

The Court denied the petition, affirming the CA's decision regarding the award of US$25,313.00 to the responde...continue reading