CASE 2019-0018: MAUNLAD TRANS, INC.; UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC., SEACHEST ASSOCIATES; CARNIVAL CORPORATION; AND/OR RONALD MANALIGOD, PETITIONERS, V. ROMEO RODELAS, JR., RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 225705, 01 APRIL 2019, DEL CASTILLO) (SUBJECT/S: DISABILITY BENEFITS) (BRIEF TITLE: MAUNLAD TRANS VS RODELAS)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The April 29, 2015 Decision and July 8, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 130412 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Judgment is hereby rendered DECLARING respondent Romeo Rodelas, Jr. entitled to disability benefits in the amount of US$16,795.00 only, equivalent to Grade 8 disability under the POEA Contract. The original award of attorney’s fees in respondent’s favor is DELETED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

NOTE: IN THIS CASE, RESPONDENT REFUSED TO UNDERGO 120/240 DAY PERIODS FOR TREATMENT, THUS VIOLATING HIS CONTRACT AND THE LAW.

 

RESPONDENT REFUSED TO UNDERGO THE 120/240 TREATMENT. CAN HE STILL BE ENTITLED TO PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY?

 

NO, BECAUSE BY NOT UNDERGOING SUCH TREATMENT, HE VIOLATED HIS CONTRACT AND THE LAW.

 

The fact that respondent was not re-hired by petitioners has no bearing, considering that the former violated his contract and the law. Simply put, respondent may not be rewarded – for violating the law and his contract – with a grant of permanent and total disability benefits. This would set a wrong precedent for others to follow. While the Court looks at the cause of labor with a compassionate eye, it must not necessarily turn blind and completely ignore the rights of the employer; the law and justice should always prevail.

 

As for the argument that even surgery is not a guarantee that respondent’s condition will return to normal, this does not entitle him to the indemnity he seeks; the fact remains that he violated his contract and the law. His infraction erased any benefit he may have derived from such argument; besides, while this is a medical opinion shared by the company-designated physician, the Court is free to rely on it or discard it altogether.

 

WHY SHOULD RESPONDENT UNDERGO THE 120/240 PERIODS FOR TREATMENT?

 

SO HIS EMPLOYER WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSIST HIM IN FINDING A CURE FOR HIS CONDITION AND THUS MINIMIZE ANY LEGAL AND PECUNIARY LIABILITY IT MAY BE HELD ANSWERABLE FOR.

 

Without the seafarer undergoing the prescribed 120/240-day periods for treatment, his employer is deprived of the opportunity to assist him in finding a cure for his condition and thus minimize any legal and pecuniary liability it may be held answerable for. At the same time, there is no way of assessing the seafarer’s medical condition with finality; without this assessment, no corresponding indemnity is forthcoming – understandably. That is why the seafarer must subject himself to treatment as prescribed by the law and the standard POEA contract; this requirement is patently for his benefit in all respects.

 

CAN HE STILL AVAIL OF ANY BENEFIT?

 

YES. HE IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION EQUIVALENT TO OR COMMENSURATE WITH HIS INJURY.

 

Thus, consistent with the ruling in the C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Orbeta case cited above, it must be held that respondent is entitled only to compensation equivalent to or commensurate with his injury. In the absence of an opinion from a physician of his own choice, or a third one as the case may be, respondent must abide by the findings of the company-designated physician, which in this case remains unrefuted precisely since respondent plainly abandoned his treatment. The Grade 8 assessment of the company-designated physician therefore stands, and for this, respondent is entitled only to the equivalent monetary benefit of US$16,795.00 pursuant to the schedule of disability benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract.

 

IS RESPONDENT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES?

 

NO BECAUSE THERE WAS NO GROUND FOR THE INSTITUTION OF THIS LABOR CASE.

 

On the issue of attorney’s fees, the Court finds that, since there was no ground for the institution of the instant labor case to begin with, respondent has no right to demand the payment of such fees. As was held in Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. v. Penales,[12]

 

Under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, attorney’s fees can be recovered ‘when the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest.’ Considering the above pronouncements, this Court sees no reason why damages or attorney’s fees should be awarded to Penales. It is obvious that he did not give the petitioners’ company-designated physician ample time to assess and evaluate his condition, or to treat him properly for that matter. The petitioners had a valid reason for refusing to pay his claims, especially when they were complying with the terms of the POEA SEC with regard to his allowances and treatment.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SC-2019-0018-G.R. NO. 225705 – MAUNLAD TRANS, INC ET AL VS ROMEO RODELAS, JR – 01 APRIL 2019 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.