SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 231773. March 11, 2019.]

CESAR C. PELAGIO , petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE

CARRIERS, INC., CARLOS SALINAS, and NORWEGIAN CREW
MANAGEMENT A/S , respondents.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE , J : p

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 led by petitioner Cesar C.
Pelagio (Pelagio) assailing the Decision 2 dated January 16, 2017 and the Resolution 3
dated May 22, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 122771, which
annulled and set aside the Decision 4 dated August 24, 2011 and the Resolution 5 dated
October 4, 2011 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC-LAC Case
No. M-05-000458-11, and accordingly, reinstated the Decision 6 dated April 29, 2011 of
the Labor Arbiter (LA) awarding Pelagio the amount of US$13,437.00 representing
permanent partial disability benefits.

The Facts

Respondent Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTCI) for and on behalf of its
foreign principal, Norwegian Crew Management A/S, hired Pelagio as a Motorman on
board the vessel M/V Drive Mahone for a period of six (6) months, under a Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)-approved contract of employment 7
dated September 29, 2009 and a collective bargaining agreement 8 (CBA) between
Norwegian Crew Management A/S and Associated Marine O cers' and Seamen's
Union of the Philippines. After being declared t for employment, 9 Pelagio boarded
M/V Drive Mahone on November 3, 2009. 1 0
Sometime in February 2010, Pelagio experienced di culty in breathing and some
pains on his nape, lower back, and joints while at work. Pelagio was then referred to a
port doctor in Said, Egypt where he was diagnosed with "Myositis" 1 1 and declared un t
to work. 1 2 On March 2, 2010, Pelagio was repatriated back to the Philippines for
further medical treatment, and thereafter, promptly sought the medical attention of the
company-designated physician, Dr. Roberto Lim, at Metropolitan Medical Center. 1 3
After a series of medical and laboratory examinations, 1 4 including chest x-ray,
pulmonary function tests, electroencephalogram, and other related physical
examinations, Pelagio was nally diagnosed with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Bilateral L5-
S1 Radiculopathy, Mild Degenerative Changes, and Lumbosacral Spine 1 5 with an
interim assessment of a Grade 11 disability rating — "slight loss of lifting power of the
trunk." 1 6
On August 18, 2010, Pelagio sought a second opinion from a private orthopedic
surgery physician, Dr. Manuel Fidel M. Magtira (Dr. Magtira), who assessed him with a
Grade 8 disability — moderate rigidity or two-thirds loss of motion or lifting power of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 the trunk — and declared him "permanently UNFIT TO WORK in any capacity at his
previous occupation." 1 7 CAIHTE

Pelagio then sought to avail of permanent total disability bene ts from

respondents PTCI, Carlos Salinas, and Norwegian Crew Management A/S
(respondents), to no avail. Hence, he led a claim 1 8 for permanent total disability
bene ts, reimbursement of medical expenses, illness allowance, damages, and
attorney's fees against petitioners before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC, docketed
as NLRC-NCR No. (M) 09-13299-10. Essentially, Pelagio contends that his inability to
work for more than 120 days from repatriation entitles him to permanent total
disability benefits. 1 9
For their part, 2 0 respondents countered that Pelagio is not entitled to permanent
total disability bene ts, considering that the independent physician, Dr. Magtira, merely
assessed him with a Grade 8 impediment. In this relation, respondents likewise claimed
that on August 5, 2010, the company-designated physician assessed Pelagio with a
Grade 11 disability — slight loss of lifting power of the trunk (August 5, 2010 Medical
Report). 2 1 In view of the con icting ndings of the company-designated and the
independent physicians, respondents suggested that they seek a third mutually-
appointed doctor to comply with the provisions of the POEA Standard Employment
Contract, but Pelagio refused. Finally, respondents averred that they offered Pelagio the
amount of US$13,437.00, the corresponding bene t to a Grade 11 impediment
pursuant to the CBA, but he rejected such offer. 2 2

The LA Ruling

In a Decision 2 3 dated April 29, 2011, the LA found Pelagio to be suffering from a
permanent partial disability, and accordingly, ordered respondents to jointly and
solidarily pay him the amount of US$13,437.00. 2 4 The LA ruled that Pelagio's mere
inability to work for 120 days from his repatriation did not ipso facto mean that he is
suffering from a permanent total disability, especially in view of the disability
assessments given by both the company-designated and the independent physicians.
On this note, the LA gave weight to the ndings of the company-designated physician
that Pelagio was suffering from a Grade 11 impediment, and thus, must only be
awarded disability benefits corresponding thereto. 2 5
Dissatisfied, Pelagio appealed to the NLRC. 2 6

The NLRC Ruling

In a Decision 2 7 dated August 24, 2011, the NLRC reversed and set aside the LA
ruling, and accordingly, awarded Pelagio the amounts of US$70,000.00 representing
permanent total disability bene ts and US$7,000.00 as attorney's fees, or a total of
US$77,000.00, at their peso equivalent at the time of actual payment. 2 8
The NLRC found that in the absence of the purported August 5, 2010 Medical
Report in the case records, there is nothing that would support respondents' claim that
the company-designated physician indeed issued Pelagio a nal disability rating of
Grade 11. Thus, the NLRC deemed that there was no nal assessment made on
Pelagio. In view thereof, the NLRC ruled that Pelagio's disability went beyond 240 days
without a declaration that he is t to resume work or an assessment of disability rating,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 and as such, he is already entitled to permanent total disability bene ts as stated under
the CBA. 2 9
Respondents led a motion for reconsideration, 3 0 attaching thereto a copy of
the August 5, 2010 Medical Report. However, the same was denied in a Resolution 3 1
dated October 4, 2011. Aggrieved, respondents led a petition for certiorari before the
CA. 3 2

The CA Ruling

In a Decision 3 3 dated January 16, 2017, the CA annulled the NLRC ruling and
reinstated that of the LA. It opined that the company-designated physician indeed gave
Pelagio a disability rating of Grade 11 within 240 days from his repatriation, as evinced
by the July 27, 2010 Medical Report 3 4 which was later on a rmed by the August 5,
2010 Medical Report. Hence, the CA concluded that the company-designated
physician's ndings should prevail considering that he extensively examined and
treated Pelagio's medical condition. 3 5
Dissatis ed, Pelagio moved for reconsideration, 3 6 but was denied in a
Resolution 3 7 dated May 22, 2017; hence, this petition.

The Issue before the Court

The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly
reinstated the LA ruling which only deemed Pelagio to be suffering from a Grade 11
impediment, and must only receive permanent partial disability bene ts corresponding
thereto. HEITAD

The Court's Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

"Preliminarily, the Court stresses the distinct approach in reviewing a CA's ruling
in a labor case. In a Rule 45 review, the Court examines the correctness of the CA's
Decision in contrast with the review of jurisdictional errors under Rule 65. Furthermore,
Rule 45 limits the review to questions of law. In ruling for legal correctness, the Court
views the CA Decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari was presented
to the CA. Hence, the Court has to examine the CA's Decision from the prism of whether
the CA correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in
the NLRC decision." 3 8
"Case law states that grave abuse of discretion connotes a capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment, done in a despotic manner by reason of passion or
personal hostility, the character of which being so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act
at all in contemplation of law." 3 9
"In labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when its
ndings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, which refers to
that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion. Thus, if the NLRC's ruling has basis in the evidence and the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 applicable law and jurisprudence, then no grave abuse of discretion exists and the CA
should so declare and, accordingly, dismiss the petition." 4 0
Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court nds that the CA erred in
ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC, as its nding that Pelagio
is entitled to permanent and total disability bene ts is in accord with the evidence on
record, as well as settled legal principles of labor law.
In Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Rapiz , 4 1 the Court explained that a seafarer's failure
to obtain any gainful employment for more than 120 days after his medical repatriation
does not ipso facto deem his disability to be permanent and total as the company
designated physician may be given an additional 120 days, or a total of 240 days from
such repatriation, to give the seafarer further treatment, and thereafter, make a
declaration as to the nature of the latter's disability. 4 2 It was then clari ed, however,
that for the company-designated physician to avail of the extended 240-day period, he
must rst perform some signi cant act to justify an extension ( e.g., that the illness still
requires medical attendance beyond the initial 120 days but not to exceed 240 days);
otherwise, the seafarer's disability shall be conclusively presumed to be permanent
and total. 4 3 Hence, it reiterated the guidelines that govern seafarers' claims for
permanent and total disability benefits, to wit:
1. The company-designated physician must issue a nal medical
assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days
from the time the seafarer reported to him;
2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within
the period of 120 days, without any justi able reason, then the seafarer's
disability becomes permanent and total;
3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within
the period of 120 days with a su cient justi cation ( e.g., seafarer required
further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of
diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the
burden to prove that the company-designated physician has su cient
justification to extend the period; and
4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his
assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the
seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any
justification . 4 4 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Otherwise stated, the company-designated physician is required to issue a final
and de nite assessment of the seafarer's disability rating within the aforesaid
120/240-day period; 4 5 otherwise, the opinions of the company-designated and the
independent physicians are rendered irrelevant because the seafarer is already
conclusively presumed to be suffering from a permanent and total disability, and thus,
is entitled to the benefits corresponding thereto. 4 6 ATICcS

To recapitulate, the CA's nding that the company-designated physician gave

Pelagio a disability rating is largely based on the July 27, 2010 Medical Report 4 7 which
was seconded by the August 5, 2010 Medical Report, 4 8 which respondents claim to
contain the company-designated physician's nal disability grading of Pelagio's
condition. 4 9 However, a more circumspect review of these documents show that these
do not constitute the nal and de nite assessment required by law, considering
that: (a) the July 27, 2010 Medical Report expressly provided that the ndings therein
are only interim; 5 0 whereas (b ) the August 5, 2010 Medical Report only provided for a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 "potential disability grading." 5 1
Besides, even assuming arguendo that the August 5, 2010 Medical Report indeed
contains Pelagio's nal disability grading as posited by respondents, it must be noted
that the same was belatedly adduced in evidence when it was attached to respondents'
motion for reconsideration before the NLRC, even if it appears to be readily available.
Case law instructs that "while strict compliance to technical rules is not required in
labor cases, liberal policy should still be pursuant to equitable principles of law. In this
regard, belated submission of evidence may be allowed only if the delay in its
presentation is su ciently justi ed; the evidence adduced is undeniably material to the
cause of a party; and the subject evidence should su ciently prove the allegations
sought to be established." 5 2 Here, respondents did not explain the reasons for their
failure to present the August 5, 2010 Medical Report at the earliest opportunity, and it
was only after the NLRC rendered an unfavorable decision that the same was
presented. Verily, respondents' belated submission thereof without any explanation
casts doubt on its credibility especially since it does not appear to be a newly
discovered evidence. 5 3
In the absence of a nal and de nite disability assessment of the company-
designated physician, Pelagio is conclusively presumed to be suffering from a
permanent and total disability, and thus, is entitled to the bene ts corresponding
thereto. In this light, the Court deems it proper to reverse the CA ruling and reinstate
that of the NLRC, with modi cation imposing on the monetary awards due to Pelagio
legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from nality of this Decision until full
payment, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. 5 4
WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED . The Decision dated January 16, 2017
and the Resolution dated May 22, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
122771 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE . Accordingly, the Decision dated August 24,
2011 and the Resolution dated October 4, 2011 of the National Labor Relations
Commission in NLRC-LAC Case No. M-05-000458-11, which awarded petitioner Cesar
C. Pelagio the amounts of US$70,000.00 representing permanent total disability
bene ts and US$7,000.00 as attorney's fees, or a total of US$77,000.00, at their peso
equivalent at the time of actual payment, are hereby REINSTATED , with
MODIFICATION imposing on said awards legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum
from finality of this Decision until full payment.
SO ORDERED .
Carpio, Caguioa, J.C. Reyes, Jr. and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 8-24.

2. Id. at 228-240 & 246-254. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon with
Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Renato C. Francisco, concurring.
3. Id. at 262-263.

4. Id. at 140-156. Penned by Commissioner Numeriano D. Villena with Presiding Commissioner

Herminio V. Suelo and Commissioner Angelo Ang Palaña, concurring.

5. Id. at 158-161.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 6. Id. at 115-120. Penned by Labor Arbiter Jose G. De Vera.

7. Id. at 25.
8. Id. at 26-40.
9. See medical examination records dated September 25, 2009; id. at 42.

10. See id. at 141 and 229.

11. See indorsement letter dated May 18, 2010; CA rollo, p. 203.

12. See rollo, p. 141.

13. See id. at 142.
14. See Pelagio's medical examination reports; id. at 43-50.
15. See the 3rd Medical Report dated March 11, 2010 of Metropolitan Medical Center Assistant
Medical Coordinator Dr. Mylene Cruz-Balbon and Medical Coordinator Dr. Robert D. Lim;
CA rollo, pp. 207-208.
16. See Private and Confidential Medical Report dated July 27, 2010; id. at 375-376.
17. Rollo, p. 142. See also Medical Report dated August 18, 2010 of Dr. Magtira; CA rollo, pp.
274-276.
18. See Complaint dated September 17, 2010 (id. at 54-55) and Position Paper for Complainant
dated January 24, 2011 (id. at 56-75).
19. See id. at 143-144. See also id. at 230-231.
20. See Respondent's Position Paper dated March 2, 2011 (erroneously written as March 2,
2010); id. at 77-113.
21. See id. at 144. See also Private and Confidential Medical Report dated August 5, 2010; id. at
157.
22. See id. at 144-145.

23. Id. at 115-120.

24. Id. at 120.
25. See id. at 118-120.
26. See Memorandum of Appeal dated May 20, 2011; id. at 121-138.
27. Id. at 140-156.

28. See id. at 154-156.

29. See id. at 148-155.
30. Dated September 20, 2011. Records, pp. 399-424.
31. Rollo, pp. 158-161.
32. Dated November 23, 2011. Id. at 164-192.

33. Id. at 228-240 & 246-254.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 34. CA rollo, pp. 375-376.

35. See rollo, pp. 236-240, 246-252.

36. See motion for reconsideration dated February 9, 2017; id. at 255-261.
37. Id. at 262-263.
38. University of Santo Tomas (UST) v. Samahang Manggagawa ng UST , G.R. No. 184262,
April 24, 2017, 824 SCRA 52, 60, citing Quebral v. Angbus Construction, Inc., 798 Phil.
179, 187 (2016).
39. Id. at 60-61; citation omitted.
40. Id. at 61.
41. G.R. No. 218871, January 11, 2017, 814 SCRA 303.

42. See id. at 308-309; citation omitted.

43. See id. at 309-310; citations omitted.
44. Id. at 310; citing Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, 765 Phil. 341, 362-363
(2015).
45. See Sharpe Sea Personnel, Inc. v. Mabunay , G.R. No. 206113, November 6, 2017, citing
Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. Cruz, 786 Phil. 451, 464 (2016) and Kestrel Shipping Co.,
Inc. v. Munar, 702 Phil. 717, 731 (2013).
46. See Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. Cruz, id., citing Alpha Ship Management Corp. v. Calo,
724 Phil. 106, 125-126 (2014).
47. CA rollo, pp. 375-376.

48. Rollo, p. 157.

49. See id. at 116, 144, and 231-232.
50. Pertinent portion of the July 27, 2010 Medical Report reads: "His closest interim assessment
is Grade 11 — slight loss of lifting power of the trunk." (CA rollo, p. 376.)
51. Pertinent portion of the August 5, 2010 Medical Report reads: "Based on his present
condition, the potential disability grading is Grade 11 — slight loss of lifting power of the
trunk." (Rollo, p. 157.)
52. Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. Cruz, supra note 45, at 462-463, citing Misamis Oriental II
Electric Service Cooperative v. Cagalawan, 694 Phil. 268, 281 (2012).
53. Id. at 463.
54. See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com