26 Skanfil Maritime Services, Inc. vs. Almario M. Centeno, G.R. No. 227655, April 27, 2022
26 Skanfil Maritime Services, Inc. vs. Almario M. Centeno, G.R. No. 227655, April 27, 2022
26 Skanfil Maritime Services, Inc. vs. Almario M. Centeno, G.R. No. 227655, April 27, 2022
$Upren1e Qtourt
~a~uio <tttp
THIRD DIVISION
- versus -
DECISION
The Court resolves the petition by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Cou1t, where Skanfil Maritin,e Services, Inc., (Skanfil), Crown
Shipmanagement, Inc., and Jose Mario C. Bunag/ ·' question the Court of
Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated July 27, 2016, and Resolution 2 dated October
14, 2016, in CA-G.R. SP No . 144697. The assailed CA issuances awarded
Designated addit ional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Jav ier pe1· Rafne dated Ju ly
8, 2020 .
Alty . Jose Mario C. Bufiag in some p:JSls of the r-7//0.
Ro!lu, pp. 15-33. Penned by now Su1Jre1ne Couri Asc.,ociaxe Justi ce Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, ·w ith the
concurrence of Associate Justices Ce li a C. L1 brea-Leagng0 an d l\flelch or Q.C. ScJJ ang.
Id . at 35.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 227655
In add ition to US$125,000.00 as permanent di sability benefits, the C A awarded Almario with
f>30 ,000.00 , as moral damages , PS0 ,000.00 . as exemplary damages and attorney's fees .
Rollo, pp . 17-18.
Id. at 172- 181. See Medical Reports, Ann exes "F," "G," ·'G- 1." '' H," " I," " J," " K." " L," " M," and "N."
Id . at 181. See Medical Report Annex "N ."
Id. at 21 1. See Medical Report Annex " Q-3 .'"
Id.
Id. at 225 -226.
I
Decision 3 G.R. No. 227655
10
Id. at 218-222; and 226-227.
11
Id . at 222.
12
Id. at 224-233. Penned by Comissioner Dolores M. Peralta-Beley, with the concurrence of Presiding
Commissioner Grace E. Maniquez-Tan and Commissioner Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap.
13
Id . at 23 1-232.
14
Id. at 232. The dispositive portion of the NLRC decision provides:
WHEREFORE, premises considered , complainant's Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit.
Accordingly, the Decision of Labor Arbiter Augusto L. Villanueva dated July 31 , 2015 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. (Id. Emphases in the original.)
Decision 4 G .R. No. 227655
Findings of the CA
Almario elevated the case to the CA, insisting that the NLRC acted with
grave abuse of discretion in affirming the LA's decision based on doubtful,
vague, and highly questionable assessments of the company-designated
physicians. Almario averred that one of the company-designated physicians,
Dr. Ramon Antonio Sarmiento (Dr. Sarmiento), a rehabilitation medicine
specialist, declared that Almario was unfit to work and was advised to
continue the therapy even after three months of initial physical therapy. 15
On July 27, 2016, the CA reversed the findings of the NLRC and the
LA. The CA gave credence to Almario's claim that Dr. Sarmiento was a
company-designated physician. Dr. Sanniento issued an "unfit to work"
certification eight days after Dr. Hao-Quan issued the I 0 th and Final Report.
Based on Dr. Sarmiento's recommendations, Almario should continue the
physical therapy sessions. 16 Consequently, there were no final and definitive
assessments from the company-designated physicians.
15
Id. at 94-9 5.
16
id. ctt 23-24.
17
Id. at 32 .
Decision 5 G.R. No. 227655
not refer Almario to Dr. Sarmiento. 18 The CA also erred in awarding disability
benefits under an alleged CBA because Skanfil was not a paiiy to the alleged
CBA. The CBA was between ITF and Bremer Bereederungsgesellschaft mbH
& Co. KG. Besides, Almario failed to prove that the CBA applies in the case. 19
In its reply, 24 Skanfil countered that it was able to prove that Dr.
Sarmiento is not a company-designated physician. Skanfil asse1is that the 10 th
and Final Report issued by Dr. Hao-Quan is a final and definitive assessment
of Almario's fitness. The neurosurgeon and the orthopedic surgeon who
rendered medical services for Almario's specific illness/injury are expected
to keep within their bounds, and to the illness that was referred to them for
treatment.
ISSUES
18 Id. at 48-49.
19
Id. at 56-58 .
20
Id. at 243 -264.
21
Id . at 254.
22
Id . at 255.
23
Id. at 258.
24
Id. at 267-277.
r
Decision 6 G.R. No. 227655
RULING
Prefatorily, the Corni stresses that the CA may review NLRC decisions
only through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack, or excess
of jurisdiction. The review is limited to whether the NLRC acted arbitrarily,
whimsically, or capriciously, and does not entail looking into the correctness
of the judgment on the merits. Necessarily, when the case is elevated to the
Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the
contentious issue would be a question of law whether the NLRC acted with
grave abuse of discretion in rendering its judgment. 25 In essence, the Comi is
tasked to determine whether the CA correctly found grave abuse of discretion
when the NLRC ruled that Almario was not entitled to the claim for permanent
disability benefits.
The company-
designated physicians failed to
issue a valid medical assessment
within 120 days from Almario's
repatriation. Consequently,
Almario's disability is
considered permanent and total.
xxxx
25 Riingen v. Western Uniun Fir:ancia/ Sen ·ic:,.1· r Hong /{ong ) Limited. Philippines Rep1·ese11/utiw· ( )jji'ce.
G.R. No. 252716, March 3, ::'02 :. < :-,,t,'}c ;,';,~: ibt '1 1 :-· ._j udiciary .gov.phith,' bookshelt/showdocs/l /6749 1>
26 Razonable v. Maersk -Filipinas Cn·w,11~:- inc, rJ .R. No. 24 !674. June- l 0. 2020.
< https://el ibrary.judiciary .gov .p!1, :iicbo,, k::hci f/docmc nth/.1 un /2020/ I >
r
Decision 7 G.R. No. 227655
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
27
765 .Phil. 341 (2015).
J
Decision 8 G.R. No . 227655
28
£Iburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quioge, Jr. , id . at 362-363.
29
G.R. No. 2274 19, June I 0, 2020,
<https://elibrary.jud iciary.gov.ph/thebookshe lf/docmonth / J un/2020/ I>
JO
Razonable v. Maersk-Filipinos Crewing, Inc., G.R. No. 241674, June I 0, 2020,
<https ://elibrary.j udiciary .gov .ph/thebookshelf/docmonth/ Jun/2020/ I>
JI
G.R. No. 241674, June 10, 2020,
< https: //e library.j udiciary.gov .ph/thebookshelf/docmonth/ J un/2020/ I>
32
Razonable v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc., id.
33
G.R. No. 2406 14, June 10, 2019,
<https ://el ibrary .judiciary .gov .ph/thebookshel f/docmonth/ J un/2019/ I>
34
Ampo-on v. Reinier Pacific International Shipping, In c., G.R. No. 240614, June 10, 2019, id.
35
Rollo, pp. 170- 172 . See Annexes "E," "E- 1," and " F."
36
Id. at 209-2 10. See Annexes "Q-1 ," and "Q-2."
I
Decision 9 G.R. No. 227655
The 10 th and Final Report was issued on February 7, 2014, or eight days
beyond the prescribed period. However, the company-designated physicians
failed to justify why the assessment must be issued beyond 120 days . Senior
Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe and Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F.
Leonen aptly observed that the company-designated physicians failed to
explain in detail the progress of Almario's treatment and approximate
recovery period warranting further medical treatment beyond the 120-day
prescribed period. Thus, the 10 th and Final Repmi beyond 120 days is
unjustified. Following Elburg, Almario's disability is deemed permanent and
total upon the lapse of 120 days. Article 198 (c) ( 1) of the Labor Code becomes
operative: 37
xxxx
Moreover, the 10 th and Final Report is not final and valid medical
assessment. It did not categorically state that Almario is fit to work. The report
states:
37 Ampo-on v. Reinier Pacific lmernational Shipping, Inc., G. R. No. 240614 , June I 0, 2019,
<https: //elibrary.judiciary.gov .ph/thebookshelf/docmonth /J un/2019/ I >
I
Decision IO G.R. No. 227655
(Sgd.)
Karen Frances Hao-Quan, M.D.
Asst. Medical Coordinator3 8
38
Rollo, p. 208.
39
G.R No. 247409, February 3, 2020.
<https: //el ibrary .judiciary .gov. ph/thebookshe Iti'docmonth/ Feb/2020/ l >
40
See Ampo-on v. Reinier Pac{fic International Shipping, In c., G.R. No . 2406 14, June I 0, 2019,
<https :/ /el ibrary.judiciary.gov .ph/thebookshe lf/docmonth /J un/2019/ l >
41
See Ampo-on v. Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc., id.
I
Decision 11 G.R. No. 227655
(Sgd.)
Almario M. Centeno
Name of Vessel: Pos Topas
Nature of Illness or Injury:
S/P Suturing of Lacerated Wound on Scalp;
Fracture, 3 rd Sacrum; Mild L3 - L4 Disc Bulge
(Sgd.)
Witness: Karen Frances Hao-Quan, M.D, Marine Medical Services
(Sgd.)
Almario M. Centeno 42
Verily, the 10 th and Final Report and the Certificate of Fitness for Work
are not final and valid assessments. They are incomplete and not definitive of
Almario's state of health and capacity to resume work. Most importantly, they
were issued beyond the prescribed period. Consequently, Almario's disability
is considered pennanent and total. Almario was not even required to refer the
company-designated physician's findings to his chosen physician because
there is no medical assessment to contest. Thus, it is unnecessary to discuss
whether Dr. Sarmiento was among the company-designated physicians, and
talk about the value of Dr. Sarmiento's medical findings.
42
Rollo, p. 211. See Annex "Q-3 ."
Decision !2 G.R . No. 227655
xxxx
Skanfil argues that it is not a patty to the CBA, and is not bound by its
provisions. The CBA is between ITF and Bremer Bereederungsgesellschaft
mbH & Co. KG. The Court is unconvinced. The CA categorically found that
Skanfil and Crown Shipmanagement, Inc. are represented by Bremer
Bereederungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG in the CBA vvith the seafarers, but
Skanfil did not deny this finding. Skanfil did not address the CA's observation
that the captain of M/V POS TOPAS used the header of BBG-
Bereederungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, and whether the captain merely
erred in using the header. The use of the header belies Skinfil' s claim that the
CBA does not bind it.
43
id . ;:it 27
G. R. No. 2 '.39055 , March ! I, 2020,
< https: //el ibra1-y .j uci ic iary .gov .ph/tl1cb0(>kohc: l/ducrnonth / l'vlai /2020/ I>
Decision 'I ,) G.R. No. 227655
Here, the CA awarded morai darn ages because of the alleged refusal of
Skanfil to pay the disability benefo.s despi te Dr. Sarmiento's certification that
Almario is unfit for work. However, it is insufficient to conclude whether
Skanfil 's actions are tainted with bad faith that would partake the nature of
fraud. Here, Skanfil never evaded its liability of providing medical attention.
Almario was referred to a neurosurgeon and an orthopedic surgeon to address
his medical condition. What is clear here is a difference of opinion on the
status of Almario's medical condition and Skanfil's failure to issue a timely
and valid medical assessment. fn tr.e absence of substantial evidence showing
malice or bad faith in refusing the seafarer' s claim for disability benefits,
moral and exemplary damages should not be awarded.46
However, the award of attorney's fees is proper. Article 2208 (8) of the
Civil Code provides that attorney ' s fees may be recovered "[i]n actions for
indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws." 47
The awards for moral and exemplary damages are DELETED. The
total monetary awards shall earn legal interest at (6%) per annum from the
finaiity of this Decision until complete payment.
SO ORDERED.
45
Chan v. Magsaysay Corporation_ 1d .
46
Chan v. Magsaysay Corporation, id.
~7
See Pc1s1or v. Bibby Sh ippin.e Pi1ihpp ini!3, !,1c.. G.R. No. ':!:3 8842, November I9, '.2018,
<https://ei ibraryjudiciary.g0v.phitl! ek<.1k'si-wifi'ciocmonth/Nov/20 18/ I>
48
716 Phil. 267 (2013).
G.R. No. 227655
\1/E CONCUR:
/\ ssociate Justice
C hairperson
ATTESTATIO N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been rea ched in
consulta"tion before the case was assigned to the wTiter i ) f the opinion of the
Court's Division.