FACTS: Petitioner Was Hired by Respondent As Chief Officer Under Contract For Nine Months. He

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 203804, April 15, 2015
DARIO A. CARCEDO (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE PRISCILLA DELA CRUZ-

CARCEDO), Petitioner, v. MAINE MARINE PHILIPPINES, INC. AND/OR MISUGA KAJUN CO.,
LTD., AND/OR MA. CORAZON GEUSE-SONGCUYA, Respondent.
FACTS: Petitioner was hired by respondent as Chief Officer under contract for nine months. He
underwent the Pre-Employment Medical Examination where he was declared fit for work and
boarded the vessel.
While on board, petitioner’s foot was wounded because of his safety shoes and upon
examination, the ship doctor gave him antibiotics and allowed him to resume work. His foot’s
condition worsened. Consequently, he felt pain, developed fever and headache.
Petitioner was repatriated and was immediately referred to the company-designated physician,
for medical treatment. He went in and out of the hospital due to infection of the amputated
stump, and underwent a lot of medical procedures. When discharged, he was advised to
continue daily wound care and to continue his medications.
Meanwhile, petitioner consulted the doctor who amputated his second toe and told him that
with his present condition right now, he is not fit to return to his previous work.
Petitioner filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits and averred, among
others, that (1) his injury was work-related and his disability was total and permanent.
The Labor Arbiter denied petitioner’s claim for full disability and awarded him only partial
disability in accordance with the contract between the parties. While the NLRC reversed the
decision and awarded petitioner full disability benefits and held that petitioner’s death was
confirmation of his unfitness to do work as a seaman.
However, the CA NULLIFIED the decision of NLRC and REINSTATED the Labor Arbiter’s Decision.
ISSUE: WON petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
HELD: Yes, because a contract is the law between the parties, which in this case are the CBA
and the POEA-SEC. Indeed, the schedule of disabilities in the CBA, if there is one, or the
POEA-SEC, should be the primary basis for the determination of a seafarer’s degree of
disability. However, the POEA-SEC and the CBA cannot be read in isolation from the
Labor Code and the AREC. Otherwise, the disability rating of the seafarer will be
completely at the mercy of the company-designated physician, without redress, should
the latter fail or refuse to give one.
Under provisions of the CBA, there are three instances when a seafarer may be entitled to
100% disability compensation. These are: (1) when the seafarer is declared to have suffered
100% disability; (2) when the seafarer is assessed with disability of at least 50%; and (3) when
the seafarer, while assessed at below 50% disability, is certified as permanently unfit for sea
service. Both the disability assessment and the certification as permanently unfit for sea
service are to be given by the company-designated physician. However, these can be
overruled by a third doctor jointly appointed by the company and the union, in the event that
the seafarer’s personal physician disagrees with the evaluations of the company-designated
physician.
Under the law, a disability is total and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the
employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120
days, except as otherwise provided.
If the 120 days initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made because the
seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability period may be
extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within
this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists. The seaman may of
course also be declared fit to work at any time such declaration is justified by his medical
condition.
Moreover, the company-designated physician is expected to arrive at a definite assessment
of the seafarer’s fitness to work or permanent disability within the period of 120 or 240 days.
That should he fail to do so and the seafarer’s medical condition remains unresolved, the
seafarer shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled.
Hence, a partial and permanent disability could, by legal contemplation, become total and
permanent.
Here, the company-designated physician failed to give a definitive impediment rating of

petitioner’s disability beyond the extended temporary disability period, after the 120-day
period but less than 240 days. By operation of law, therefore, petitioner’s total and temporary
disability lapsed into a total and permanent disability.
The standard employment contract for seafarers was formulated by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under E.O.
No. 247 to “secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure
compliance therewith” and to “promote and protect the well-being of Filipino workers overseas.” Section 29 of the
1996 POEA SEC itself provides that “[a]ll rights and obligations of the parties to [the] Contract, including the
annexes thereof, shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, international conventions,
treaties and covenants where the Philippines is a signatory.”
The Court affirmed the award of disability benefits to the seaman, citing ECC v. Sanico, GSIS v. CA, and Bejerano v.
ECC that "disability should not be understood more on its medical significance but on the loss of earning capacity.
Permanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of
similar nature that [he] was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of [his]
mentality and attainment could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness." It likewise cited Bejerano v. ECC, that
in a disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work
resulting in the impairment of one’s earning capacity.

FACTS: Petitioner Was Hired by Respondent As Chief Officer Under Contract For Nine Months. He

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACTS: Petitioner Was Hired by Respondent As Chief Officer Under Contract For Nine Months. He

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACTS: Petitioner Was Hired by Respondent As Chief Officer Under Contract For Nine Months. He

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 203804, April 15, 2015

DARIO A. CARCEDO (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE PRISCILLA DELA CRUZ-

ISSUE: WON petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.

Here, the company-designated physician failed to give a definitive impediment rating of

You might also like