Case Digest: Marlow Nvigation, Inc, et al vs. Cabatay

G.R. No. 212878     February 1, 2016

MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILS., INC. MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., LTD., W. BOCKSTLEGEL REEDEREI (Germany), GALVEZ, JR., vs. WILFREDO L. CABATAY

Petitioners- MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILS., INC. MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., LTD., W. BOCKSTLEGEL REEDEREI (Germany), GALVEZ, JR.,

Respondent – Wilfredo Cabatay

FACTS:

Cabatay entered into an employment Contract with Petitioners. The said contract was supplemented by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) Total Crew Cost Fleet Agremment (TCC-FA), .

While on duty, Cabatay suffered injury when he fell from a height in his work area. He was declared unfit to work for 25 days. He was then referred to a company doctor, dr. Tay, and  underwent further examination and treatment. After complaining of right shoulder pain, Cabatay underwent rotator cuff surgery. However, after such surgery, he missed several appointments and failed to undergo physiotherapy on time.

Dr. Tay eventually issued a combined 36% disability assessment for Cabatay.

Cabatay sought for permanent total disability benefits, claiming that he had lost his job due to his injury.

LABOR ARBITER: Cabatay won. The LA ruled that, despite the 36% disability rating, he was entitled to permanent total disability as he was permanently unfit for sea service in any capacity.

NLRC: Only permanent PARTIAL disability based Dr. Tay’s 36% disability assessment

Court of Appeals (On Rule 65): reinstated the LA ruling. the CA declared that while Cabatay’s treatment was extended (up to a maximum of 240 days), it did not negate the fact that he was disabled continuously for more than 120 days and therefore permanently disabled, especially when Dr. Tay had not declared Cabatay fit to work within the extended period. 

ISSUES:

1.           Whether or not Cabatay is entitled to permanent total disability compensation.

RULING:

The NLRC Ruling was correct. Cabatay is entitled to permanent partial disability based on Dr. Tay's 36% disability assessment, the governing law—the POEA-SEC—and the contract between the parties—the TCC-FA—as well as applicable jurisprudence, 

"Entitlement to disability benefits by seamen on overseas work is a matter governed, not only by medical findings but, by law and by contract," and so the Court declared in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., et al.

Under the 2002 POEA-SEC, it is the company-designated physician who declares/establishes the fitness to work or the degree of disability of a seafarer who is repatriated for medical reasons and needs further medical attention.Thus, under Section 20 (B) 3, the seafarer is required to submit to a post-employment medical examination by the company-designated physician.

On the other hand, under the TCC-FA, "The disability suffered by the Seafarer shall be determined by a doctor appointed mutually by the Owners/Managers and the ITF, and the Owners/Managers shall provide disability compensation to the Seafarer in accordance with the percentage specified in the table below xxx." The TCC-FA also provides for a Compensation Scale under its Annex 3 upon which Dr. Tay, the company-designated physician, based her assessment of Cabatay’s disability.

It is of no moment that Cabatay was unable to work for more than 120 days without a declaration by Dr. Tay of Cabatay’s fitness or non-fitness to work. In Vergara, the Court stressed: "This declaration of a permanent total disability after the initial 120 days of temporary disability cannot, however, be simply lifted and applied as a general rule for all cases in all contexts. The specific context of the application should be considered, as we must do in the application of all rulings and even of the law and of the implementing regulations."

Also, in Splash Philippines, Inc. v. Ruizo, the Court said that the 120-day rule "cannot be used as a cure-all formula for all maritime compensation cases. Its application must depend on the circumstances of the case, including especially compliance with the parties ' contractual duties and obligations as laid down in the POEA-SEC and/or their CBA, if one exists.

Dr. Tay had made a timely and duly made 36% disability assessment which Cabatay did not dispute. Cabatay cannot claim full disability benefits when, not only did he not dispute Dr. Tay’s assessment, he also did not submit himself to a mutually appointed doctor pursuant to the CBA.

Absent such a determination (certification) by a mutually appointed doctor, we hold that Dr. Tay's assessment should stand.

Categories: case digest, Case Digest: Marlow Nvigation, et al vs. Cabatay, G.R. No. 212878, Inc, Labor, Permanent Total Disability