5 Carcedo v. Maine Marine PDF

9/3/2020 G.R. No. 203804, April 15, 2015 - DARIO A.
ARIO A. CARCEDO (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE PRISCILLA DELA CRUZ-CARCEDO), Petitioner, …
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
April 2015 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Custom Search
Jurisprudence
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 >

April 2015 Decisions > G.R. No. 203804, April 15, 2015
ChanRobles - DARIO A. CARCEDO (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE
Professional PRISCILLA DELA CRUZ-CARCEDO), Petitioner, v. MAINE
Review, Inc. MARINE PHILIPPINES, INC. AND/OR MISUGA KAJUN CO.,
LTD., AND/OR MA. CORAZON GEUSE-SONGCUYA,
Respondent.:
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.
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 203804, April 15, 2015
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015aprildecisions.php?id=285 1/39
9/3/2020 G.R. No. 203804, April 15, 2015 - DARIO A. CARCEDO (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE PRISCILLA DELA CRUZ-CARCEDO), Petitioner, …
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.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Before the Court is a petition for review1 assailing the
Decision2 dated 29 June 2012 and Resolution3 dated 5

October 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
120706, nullifying the Decision4 dated 8 March 2011 of

the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC
LAC Case No. 01-000007-11 (OFW), and reinstating the
Decision5 dated 30 November 2010 of the Labor Arbiter

in NLRC NCR-OFW [M]-00-09-13527-09.
The Facts
On 6 August 2008, Dario A. Carcedo (Carcedo) was hired

by respondent Maine Marine Philippines, Inc. for its
foreign principal Misuga Kajun Co., Ltd. (collectively,
respondents). He was engaged as Chief Officer on board
M/V Speedwell under contract for nine months,6 with a

basic monthly salary of US$1,350.00.
Carcedo underwent the Pre-Employment Medical

Examination on 8 August 2008, where he was declared
fit for work. He boarded the vessel on 10 August 2008.
In November 2008, Carcedo’s foot was wounded because

of his safety shoes. Upon examination, the ship doctor
gave him antibiotics and allowed him to resume work.7

His foot’s condition worsened when he slid down the
deck and bumped his right foot. In January 2009, he felt
pain in the back of his swollen leg and developed fever

and headache.
On 19 January 2009, he was treated at the Yoshino

Hospital in Japan. The doctor diagnosed Carcedo with an
open fracture of the right major toe bone with a
suspicion of sepsis.8
Carcedo was repatriated on 20 January 2009. He was

immediately referred to the company-designated
physician, Dr. Nicomedez Cruz of the Manila Doctors
Hospital, for medical treatment. In Dr. Cruz’s report
dated 26 January 2009,9 he stated:
The patient underwent debridement of the

wound of the right big toe today at Manila
Doctors Hospital. Operative findings showed
infected open wound in the medial aspect of
the right big toe. There is foul smelling
purulent discharge. Vascularity of the toe is
compromised with beginning gangrene
formation. He tolerated the procedure well.
Fasting blood sugar is elevated at 14 (normal
value = 4.2-6.1). He was referred to our
ChanRobles On-Line
endocrinologist for co-management.
Bar Review
Diagnosis:
Infected wound with gangrene,
right big toe
S/P Debridement
Diabetes mellitus10
Carcedo also underwent disarticulation of the right big
toe on 26 January 2009.11 He was discharged from the
hospital on 12 February 2009.12
On 24 March 2009, Dr. Cruz recommended “an

impediment disability grading of 8% Loss of first toe (big
toe) and some of its metatarsal bone.”13
Due to infection of the amputated stump, Carcedo was

again admitted to the hospital on 20 April 2009 for
intravenous antibiotics.14 While confined in the hospital,

Carcedo underwent sequestrectomy of the right first
metatarsal bone.15 He also underwent curettage and
serial debridements of the wound.16 On 27 May 2009,

Carcedo’s right first metatarsal bone was removed. He
was discharged on 6 June 2009, with the following report
from Dr. Cruz:17
ChanRobles CPA The patient was discharged today from the
Review Online hospital. The wound of the right foot is still

open with good granulation tissues. There is
a minimal suppuration and serous discharge.
He is advised to continue daily wound care.18
On his follow-up consultation on 15 June 2009, Dr. Cruz

noted that:
There is x x x good granulation tissue on the

stump of amputated right big toe. The wound
is open but with slight yellowish discharge.
Cleaning and dressing were done. He was
advised to continue his medications.19
ChanRobles Special
Lecture Series
On 21 October 2009, Carcedo filed a complaint20 for
total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of
US$148,500.00, sickness allowance and other
consequential damages.
Meanwhile, Carcedo consulted orthopedic surgeon, Dr.

Alan Leonardo R. Raymundo, who amputated Carcedo’s
second toe on 30 November 2009. Dr. Raymundo’s
Medical Report21 dated 16 March 2010 reads:
The patient saw me last October 29 and was

advised that his condition was still in the
healing process. However, in November 30 of
the same year, the patient again developed
chills and was admitted at the UP-PGH where
he underwent an amputation of the 2nd ray of

the left foot and was diagnosed with chronic
osteomyelitis with a non-healing wound in the
said area. On follow-up today, the wound has
already completely healed and closed well
with no draining sinus noted. He now has
absence of the first and second toe which is
prompting him to walk on the lateral aspect
of his left foot with a cane. He still has some
pain on weight bearing but the wound is
already completely healed.
RECOMMENDATION:
I told him that with his present condition

right now, he is not fit to return to his
previous work duties as a chief mate on
board.22
The Court of Appeals summarized the

positions of the parties, thus:
In his position paper, Carcedo averred: (1)

his injury was work-related because he
sustained the wound from his safety shoes at
work, hence, his injury was compensable
under Section 20(B) of the POEA Standard
Employment Contract; (2) his disability was
total and permanent; the injury on his leg
was so severe that despite medication, there
was no certainty that his former physical
condition would get restored and he could

resume his customary work; he walked with
difficulty and not without a cane; his
Orthopedic Surgeon, Dr. Alan Leonardo R.
Drive a New Raymundo recommended, viz: “x x x with his

present condition right now, he is not fit to
Honda Civic return to his previous work duties as a chief
RS mate on board”; (3) he suffered severe

depression and anxiety, for which, he was
entitled to moral and exemplary damages,
Honda Cars Philippines
and attorney’s fees; his employer’s refusal to
Click here to learn pay his disability benefits showed evident bad
more about this Greatfaith; and, he was denied a better medical
treatment because he had to make do with
Deal for the Honda
what his depleted resources could afford.
Civic RS Turbo!
Maine posited: there were valid reasons to
deny Carcedo’s claims, viz: (1) they were
bound by the provisions on disability
compensation under the POEA Standard
OPEN Employment Contract and CBA; the disability
compensation schedule under the IBF-
JSU/AMOSUP IMMAJ CBA Schedule of
Disability and Impediment (Annex 3 of the
CBA), provided:
Degree of Rate of
Disability Compensation
Senior
Officers
% US$
100 148,500
75 111,375
60 89,100
50 74,250
40 59,400
30 44,550
20 29,700
10 14,850
the CBA further stated:
28.4 The Company shall provide

disability compensation to the
seafarer in accordance with
APPENDIX 3, with any differences,
including less than ten percent
(10%) disability, to be pro rata;
since Carcedo’s injury fell under ‘Loss of 1st

toe (big toe) and some of its metatarsal
bone,[’] his rate of compensation was
equivalent to 8% computed, as follows:
US$148,500 x 0.08 =
US$11,880.00
(2) the disability assessment of the company-

designated physician who attended to the
seafarer throughout his illness and who had
authority to assess his medical condition,
should be given utmost credence, instead of
a doctor who had only examined the seafarer
later; (3) it had not acted in bad faith and
had dealt fairly with Carcedo; it complied
with its duties under the POEA contract; it
paid for all of Carcedo’s medical bills and
even offered to pay disability benefit of
US$11,880.00; and Carcedo was, thus, not
entitled to attorney’s fees and exemplary
damages.23
In Respondents’ Reply to Complainant’s Position Paper,24

they submitted the opinions of more doctors to refute
Carcedo’s claim that he was unfit for sea duty.
The Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
On 30 November 2010, Labor Arbiter Patricio Libo-on

denied Carcedo’s claim for full disability and awarded
him only partial disability in the amount of
US$11,800.00 in accordance with the contract between
the parties. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

complaint for the payment of full disability is
dismissed and respondent is ordered to pay
the complainant partial disability in the
amount of US$11,800.00.
SO ORDERED.25
The Labor Arbiter held that the contract between the

parties is the law between them. Hence, the partial and
permanent disability assessment made by the company-
designated physician in accordance with the CBA prevails
over the inability of Carcedo to return to his usual work.
The Ruling of the NLRC
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s

decision and awarded Carcedo full disability benefits and
attorney’s fees. The dispositive portion of the NLRC
Decision dated 8 March 2011 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
April-2015 instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The
Jurisprudence decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET

ASIDE, and a new one issued ordering MAINE
MARINE PHILIPPINES, INC., to pay DARIO A.
G.R.No. 212092, CARCEDO, or his surviving spouse,
April 08, 2015 - PRISCILLA V. DELA CRUZ-CARCEDO, the
PEOPLES GENERAL amount of ONE HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT
INSURANCE CORP. THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED US DOLLARS

(FORMERLY: PEOPLE'S ($148,500.00), plus attorney’s fees not
TRANS-EAST ASIA exceeding US$14,850.00.
INSURANCE CORP.),
Petitioner, v. COL. SO ORDERED.26
FELIX MATEO A.
RUNES, Respondent.
The NLRC gave credence to the findings of Dr.
Raymundo, and held that Carcedo’s death was
A.C. No. 5116,
April 13, 2015 - confirmation of his unfitness to do work as a seaman.27
DAVAO IMPORT The NLRC applied the definition of permanent disability
DISTRIBUTORS, INC., enunciated by the Court in the case of Crystal Shipping

Complainant, v. ATTY. Inc. v. Natividad,28 which was “the inability of a worker
JOHNNY LANDERO, to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of
Respondent. whether or not he loses the use of any part of his
body.”29
G.R. No. 176114,
April 08, 2015 -
In its Resolution dated 27 May 2011,30 the NLRC denied
GRACE SAN DIEGO Y
respondents’ motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
TRINIDAD, Petitioner,
Hence, herein respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari31
v. THE HONORABLE
before the Court of Appeals.
COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondent.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
G.R.No. 212092,
The Court of Appeals upheld the 8% disability grading
April 08, 2015 -
made by the company-designated physician in
PEOPLES GENERAL
accordance with the CBA. However, the Court of Appeals
INSURANCE CORP.
also declared Carcedo to be suffering from total and
(FORMERLY: PEOPLE'S
permanent disability because (1) he was unable to
TRANS-EAST ASIA
perform his job for more than 120 days; and (2) the
INSURANCE CORP.),
declarations by the company-designated physician that
Petitioner, v. COL.
Carcedo was fit for sea duty were made more than 400
FELIX MATEO A.
days from repatriation. The dispositive portion of the
RUNES, Respondent.
Court of Appeals’ Decision dated 29 June 2012 reads:
A.C. No. 5116,

April 13, 2015 - ACCORDINGLY, the Decision dated March 8,
DAVAO IMPORT 2011 is NULLIFIED and the Labor Arbiter’s
DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Decision dated November 30, 2010,
Complainant, v. ATTY. REINSTATED.

JOHNNY LANDERO,
Respondent. SO ORDERED.32
G.R. No. 193169,

Hence, this petition.
April 06, 2015 -
ROGELIO ROQUE,
The Issues
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Carcedo assigned the following errors:
Respondent.
G.R. No. 176114,

I
April 08, 2015 -
GRACE SAN DIEGO Y
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
TRINIDAD, Petitioner,
SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN NOT AWARDING
v. THE HONORABLE
TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY
COURT OF APPEALS,
BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER IN
Respondent.
ACCORDANCE WITH THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
G.R. No. 209741,
April 15, 2015 -
II
SOCIAL SECURITY
COMMISSION,
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
Petitioner, v. EDNA A.
COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN
AZOTE, Respondent.
DISMISSING PETITIONER’S CLAIMS FOR
DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES.33

G.R. No. 185664,
April 08, 2015 -
ANGELES P. The Court’s Ruling
BALINGHASAY,
RENATO M. BERNABE, We grant the petition in part.
ALODIA L. DEL
ROSARIO, CATALINA Entitlement to Disability Benefits
T. FUNTILA, TERESITA
L. GAYANILO, A contract is the law between the parties, which in this
RUSTICO A. JIMENEZ, case are the CBA and the POEA-SEC. The CBA contains
ARCELI P. JO, the following pertinent medical and disability provisions:
ESMERALDA D.
MEDINA, CECILIA S.
MONTALBAN, Article 25: Medical

VIRGILIO R.
OBLEPIAS, x x
CARMENCITA R. xx
PARREÑO, EMMA L. 25.3A seafarer repatriated to their port of
REYES, REYNALDO L. engagement, unfit as a result of sickness
SAVET, SERAPIO P. or injury, shall be entitled to medical
TACCAD, VICENTE I. attention (including hospitalization) at
VALDEZ, SALVACION the Company’s expense:
F. VILLAMORA, AND x x
DIONISIA M. xx
VILLAREAL, (b)in the case of injury, for so long as
Petitioners, v. CECILIA medical attention is required or until a
CASTILLO, OSCAR medical determination in accordance
DEL ROSARIO, with clause 28.2 concerning
ARTURO S. FLORES, permanent disability.
XERXES NAVARRO, x x
MARIA ANTONIA A. xx
TEMPLO AND
MEDICAL CENTER Article 28: Disability
PARAÑAQUE, INC.,
Respondent. 28.1.A seafarer who suffers permanent
disability as a result of an accident
G.R. No. 203804, whilst in the employment of the
April 15, 2015 - Company regardless of fault, including
DARIO A. CARCEDO accidents occurring while traveling to or
(SUBSTITUTED BY from the ship, and whose ability to do
HIS WIFE PRISCILLA work as a seafarer is reduced as a result
DELA CRUZ- thereof, but excluding permanent
CARCEDO), Petitioner, disability due to willful acts, shall in
v. MAINE MARINE addition to sick pay, be entitled to
PHILIPPINES, INC. compensation according to the
AND/OR MISUGA provisions of this Agreement.
KAJUN CO., LTD., 28.2.The disability suffered by the seafarer
AND/OR MA. shall be determined by a doctor
CORAZON GEUSE- appointed by the Company. If a doctor
SONGCUYA, appointed by or on behalf of the
Respondent. seafarer disagrees with the assessment,
a third doctor may be nominated jointly
G.R. No. 198543, between the Company and the Union

April 15, 2015 - and the decision of this doctor shall be
REPUBLIC OF THE final and binding on both parties.
PHILIPPINES, 28.3 The Company shall provide disability
Petitioner, v. CESAR C. compensation to the seafarer in
PASICOLAN AND accordance with APPENDIX 3, with any
GREGORIO C. differences, including less than ten
PASICOLAN, percent (10%) disability, to be pro rata.
Respondent. 28.4.A seafarer whose disability, in
accordance with 28.2 above is assessed
G.R. No. 204646, at fifty percent (50%) or more under
April 15, 2015 - the attached APPENDIX 3 shall, for the
SMART purpose of this paragraph, be regarded
COMMUNICATIONS, as permanently unfit for further sea
INC., NAPOLEON L. service in any capacity and be entitled
NAZARENO, AND to one hundred percent (100%)
RICARDO P. ISLA,* compensation. Furthermore, any
Petitioners, v. JOSE seafarer assessed at less than fifty
LENI Z. SOLIDUM, percent (50%) disability but certified as
Respondent. permanently unfit for further sea service
in any capacity by the Company-
G.R. No. 195203 nominated doctor, shall also be entitled
[Formerly UDK No. to one hundred percent (100%)
14435], April 20, compensation. Any disagreement as to
2015 - ANTONIO the assessment or entitlement shall be
PAGARIGAN, resolved in accordance with clause 28.2
Petitioner, v. above.34
ANGELITA YAGUE AND
SHIRLEY ASUNCION,
Based on the above-quoted provisions of the CBA, there
Respondent.
are three instances when a seafarer may be entitled to
100% disability compensation. These are: (1) when the
G.R. No. 194702,
seafarer is declared to have suffered 100% disability; (2)
April 20, 2015 - SAN
when the seafarer is assessed with disability of at least
LORENZO RUIZ
50%; and (3) when the seafarer, while assessed at
BUILDERS AND
below 50% disability, is certified as permanently unfit for
DEVELOPERS GROUP,
sea service.
INC. AND OSCAR
VIOLAGO, Petitioners,
According to the CBA, both the disability assessment and
v. MA. CRISTINA F. the certification as permanently unfit for sea service are
BAYANG, Respondent. to be given by the company-designated physician. These
can be overruled by a third doctor jointly appointed by
G.R. No. 216098, the company and the union, in the event that the
April 21, 2015 - seafarer’s personal physician disagrees with the
BISHOP BRODERICK evaluations of the company-designated physician.
S. PABILLO, DD, Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC provides a similar
PABLO R. mechanism for determining the disability assessment.35
MANALASTAS, JR.,
PHD, MARIA However, it is not only the contract between the parties
CORAZON AKOL, that governs the determination of the disability
CONCEPCION B. compensation due the seafarer. The Court has ruled that
REGALADO, HECTOR the provisions on disability of the Labor Code and the
A. BARRIOS, LEO Y. Amended Rules on Employee Compensation (AREC)
QUERUBIN, AUGUSTO implementing Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code are
C. LAGMAN, FELIX P. applicable to the case of seafarers. In Remigio v.
MUGA, II, PHD, ATTY.
NLRC,36 the Court held:
GREGORIO T.
FABROS, EVITA L.
JIMENEZ, AND JAIME The standard employment contract for
DL CARO, PHD, seafarers was formulated by the POEA
Petitioners, v. pursuant to its mandate under E.O. No. 247
COMMISSION ON to “secure the best terms and conditions of

ELECTIONS, EN BANC, employment of Filipino contract workers and
REPRESENTED BY ensure compliance therewith” and to
ACTING “promote and protect the well-being of
CHAIRPERSON Filipino workers overseas.” Section 29 of the

CHRISTIAN ROBERT 1996 POEA SEC itself provides that “[a]ll
S. LIM, AND rights and obligations of the parties to [the]
SMARTMATIC-TIM Contract, including the annexes thereof, shall

CORPORATION, be governed by the laws of the Republic of
REPRESENTED BY the Philippines, international conventions,
SMARTMATIC ASIA- treaties and covenants where the Philippines
PACIFIC PRESIDENT is a signatory.” Even without this provision, a

CESAR FLORES, contract of labor is so impressed with public
Respondents.; G.R. interest that the New Civil Code expressly
NO. 216562 - subjects it to “the special laws on labor
INTEGRATED BAR OF unions, collective bargaining, strikes and

THE PHILIPPINES, lockouts, closed shop, wages, working
Petitioner, v. conditions, hours of labor and similar

COMMISSION ON subjects.”
ELECTIONS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS Thus, the Court has applied the Labor Code
ACTING concept of permanent total disability to the
CHAIRPERSON case of seafarers. In Philippine Transmarine
ROBERT S. LIM, AND Carriers v. NLRC, seaman Carlos Nietes was
SMARTMATIC-TIM found to be suffering from congestive heart
CORPORATION, failure and cardiomyopathy and was declared
Respondent. as unfit to work by the company-accredited
physician. The Court affirmed the award of
G.R. No. 196592, disability benefits to the seaman, citing ECC
April 06, 2015 - v. Sanico, GSIS v. CA, and Bejerano v. ECC
SPOUSES JUVY that "disability should not be understood
MARAÑO AND MARIA more on its medical significance but on the
LUISA G. MARAÑO, loss of earning capacity. Permanent total
Petitioners, v. PRYCE disability means disablement of an employee
GASES, to earn wages in the same kind of work, or
INCORPORATED, work of similar nature that [he] was trained
Respondent. for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of
work which a person of [his] mentality and
G.R. No. 198012, attainment could do. It does not mean
April 22, 2015 - absolute helplessness." It likewise cited
PEOPLE OF THE Bejerano v. ECC, that in a disability
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- compensation, it is not the injury which is
Appellee, v. ANGEL compensated, but rather it is the incapacity
MATEO Y JACINTO to work resulting in the impairment of one’s
AND VICENTA LAPIZ Y earning capacity.37
MEDINA, Accused-
Appellants.
The pertinent Labor Code provision is found in Article
192(c)(1), Chapter VI, Title II, Book IV:
G.R. No. 202708,
April 13, 2015 -
PEOPLE OF THE
Art. 192. Permanent and total disability.
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v.
xxxx
VICTORIANO VILLAR
@ BOY, Accused-
(c) The following disabilities shall be deemed
Appellant.
total and permanent:

G.R. No. 203993,
April 20, 2015 - (1) Temporary total disability lasting
PRISCILO B. PAZ, continuously for more than one hundred
Petitioner, v. NEW twenty days, except as otherwise
INTERNATIONAL provided for in the Rules[.] (Emphasis
ENVIRONMENTAL supplied)
UNIVERSALITY, INC.,
Respondent.
The corresponding provision in the AREC is Section 2(b)
of Rule VII which reads:
G.R. No. 190112,
April 22, 2015 -
PRIMO CO, SR., SECTION 2. Disability. x x x
EDGARDO CRUZ, FE
LANNY L. ALEGADO, (b) A disability is total and permanent if as a
JESTER B. result of the injury or sickness the employee
ONGCHUAN, JOSEPH is unable to perform any gainful occupation
ONGCHUAN AND for a continuous period exceeding 120 days,
LUCIANNE CHAM, except as otherwise provided for in Rule
Petitioners, v. THE X of these Rules. (Emphasis supplied)
PHILIPPINE CANINE
CLUB, INC.,
The above rule pertains to Section 2, Rule X of the
Respondent.
AREC:
G.R. No. 172637,

April 22, 2015 - SECTION 2. Period of entitlement. (a) The
OFFICE OF THE income benefit shall be paid beginning on the
OMBUDSMAN-VISA first day of such disability. If caused by an
YAS AND EMILY ROSE injury or sickness it shall not be paid
KO LIM CHAO, longer than 120 consecutive days except
Petitioners, v. MARY where such injury or sickness still
ANN T. CASTRO, requires medical attendance beyond 120
Respondent. days but not to exceed 240 days from
onset of disability in which case benefit
G.R. No. 208163, for temporary total disability shall be
April 20, 2015 - paid. However, the System may declare
ROQUE B. BENITEZ the total and permanent status at any
AND SANTA FE LABOR time after 120 days of continuous
UNION-FEDERATION
OF FREE WORKERS, temporary total disability as may be

Petitioners, v. SANTA warranted by the degree of actual loss or
FE MOVING AND impairment of physical or mental
RELOCATION functions as determined by the System.
SERVICES/VEDIT (Emphasis supplied)
KURANGIL,
Respondent.
These provisions, in conjunction with Section 20(B)(3) of
the POEA-SEC, were interpreted in the case of Vergara v.
A.C. No. 7250
Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.38 thus:
[Formerly CBD Case
No. 05-1448], April
20, 2015 - ATTY.
As these provisions operate, the seafarer,
RICARDO M. ESPINA,
upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to
Complainant, v. ATTY.
the company-designated physician within
JESUS G. CHAVEZ,
three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis and
Respondent.
treatment. For the duration of the treatment
but in no case to exceed 120 days, the
G.R. No. 207328, seaman is on temporary total disability as he
April 20, 2015 -
is totally unable to work. He receives his
WILHELMSEN-SMITH
basic wage during this period until he is
BELL
declared fit to work or his temporary
MANNING/WILHELMSEN
disability is acknowledged by the company to
SHIP MANAGEMENT,
be permanent, either partially or totally, as
LTD./FAUSTO R.
his condition is defined under the POEA
PREYSLER, JR.,
Standard Employment Contract and by
Petitioners, v. ALLAN
applicable Philippine laws. If the 120 days
SUAREZ, Respondent.
initial period is exceeded and no such
declaration is made because the seafarer
G.R. No. 164594, requires further medical attention, then
April 22, 2015 -
the temporary total disability period may
MICHAEL SEBASTIAN,
be extended up to a maximum of 240
Petitioner, v. ANNABEL
days, subject to the right of the
LAGMAY NG,
employer to declare within this period
REPRESENTED BY HER
that a permanent partial or total
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT,
disability already exists. The seaman may
ANGELITA LAGMAY,
of course also be declared fit to work at any
Respondent.
time such declaration is justified by his
medical condition.39 (Emphasis supplied)
G.R. No. 197712,

April 20, 2015 - Hence, a partial and permanent disability could, by legal
NONITO IMBO Y contemplation, become total and permanent. The Court
GAMORES, Petitioner, in Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar40 held that the
v. PEOPLE OF THE declaration by the company-designated physician is an
PHILIPPINES, obligation, the abdication of which transforms the
Respondent. temporary total disability to permanent total disability,
regardless of the disability grade, viz:
G.R. No. 191667,
April 22, 2015 - LAND
Indeed, under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC,
BANK OF THE
only those injuries or disabilities that are
PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, v. classified as Grade 1 may be considered as
total and permanent. However, if those
EDUARDO M.
injuries or disabilities with a disability grading
CACAYURAN,
from 2 to 14, hence, partial and permanent,
Respondent,
would incapacitate a seafarer from
MUNICIPALITY OF
performing his usual sea duties for a period
AGOO, LA UNION,
of more than 120 or 240 days, depending on
Intervenor.
the need for further medical treatment, then
he is, under legal contemplation, totally and
G.R. No. 198465,
permanently disabled. In other words, an
April 22, 2015 - LITEX
impediment should be characterized as
GLASS AND
ALUMINUM SUPPLY partial and permanent not only under the
Schedule of Disabilities found in Section 32 of
AND/OR RONALD
the POEA-SEC but should be so under the
ONG-SITCO,
relevant provisions of the Labor Code and the
Petitioners, v.
Amended Rules on Employee Compensation
DOMINADOR B.
(AREC) implementing Title II, Book IV of the
SANCHEZ,
Labor Code. That while the seafarer is
Respondent.
partially injured or disabled, he is not
precluded from earning doing the same work
G.R. Nos. 173148,
he had before his injury or disability or that
April 06, 2015 - ELSA
he is accustomed or trained to do. Otherwise,
DEGAYO, Petitioner, v.
CECILIA MAGBANUA- if his illness or injury prevents him from
engaging in gainful employment for more
DINGLASAN, JOHNNY
than 120 or 240 days, as the case may be,
DINGLASAN,
he shall be deemed totally and permanently
ASUNCION
disabled.
MAGBANUA-PORRAS,
MARIANO
PASCUALITO AND Moreover, the company-designated
AMADO JR., ALL physician is expected to arrive at a
SURNAMED definite assessment of the seafarer’s
MAGBANUA, fitness to work or permanent disability
Respondent. within the period of 120 or 240 days.
That should he fail to do so and the
G.R. No. 194061, seafarer’s medical condition remains
April 20, 2015 - unresolved, the seafarer shall be
EMELIE L. BESAGA, deemed totally and permanently
Petitioner, v. SPOUSES disabled.41 (Emphasis supplied)
FELIPE ACOSTA AND
LUZVIMINDA ACOSTA
Assessment of Disability Grading
AND DIGNA
MATALANG COCHING,
We cannot agree with the Court of Appeals and the Labor
Respondent.
Arbiter that the 24 March 2009 disability assessment
made by Dr. Cruz was definitive. To our mind, the said
G.R. No. 183587,
disability assessment was an interim one because
April 20, 2015 -
Carcedo continued to require medical treatments even
LEXBER, INC.,
after 24 March 2009. He was confined in the hospital
Petitioner, v. CAESAR
from 20 April 2009 to 6 June 2009, where he underwent
M. AND CONCHITA B.
DALMAN, Respondent. serial debridements, curettage, sequestrectomy and
even amputation of the right first metatarsal bone. He
was certainly still under total disability, albeit temporary
G.R. No. 193101,
at that time.
April 20, 2015 -
NICANOR CERIOLA,
His discharge from the hospital was 137 days from
Petitioner, v. NAESS
repatriation. Following the Court’s rulings in Vergara and
SHIPPING
Kestrel, since Carcedo required further medical
PHILIPPINES, INC.,
treatments beyond the 120 day period, his total and
MIGUEL OCA AND/OR
temporary disability was extended. The company-
KUWAIT OIL TANKER,
designated physician then had until 240 days from
Respondent.
repatriation to give the final assessment.
G.R. No. 198356,

During the follow-up consultation on 15 June 2009, Dr.
April 20, 2015 -
Cruz noted that Carcedo’s wound was still open and that
ESPERANZA SUPAPO
AND THE HEIRS OF he was to continue his medications.42 Carcedo’s injury
ROMEO SUPAPO, required tending. This was 146 days from repatriation,
NAMELY: ESPERANZA, and Dr. Cruz still had nearly 100 days within which to
REX EDWARD, give Carcedo’s final disability assessment, yet he gave
RONALD TROY, none.
ROMEO, JR., SHEILA
LORENCE, ALL Indeed, the schedule of disabilities in the CBA, if there is
SURNAMED SUPAPO, one, or the POEA-SEC, should be the primary basis for
AND SHERYL the determination of a seafarer’s degree of disability.
FORTUNE SUPAPO- However, the POEA-SEC and the CBA cannot be read in
SANDIGAN, isolation from the Labor Code and the AREC. Otherwise,
Petitioners, v. the disability rating of the seafarer will be completely at
SPOUSES ROBERTO the mercy of the company-designated physician, without
AND SUSAN DE redress, should the latter fail or refuse to give one.
JESUS, MACARIO
BERNARDO, AND Here, the company-designated physician failed to give a
THOSE PERSONS definitive impediment rating of Carcedo’s disability
CLAIMING RIGHTS beyond the extended temporary disability period, after
UNDER THEM, the 120-day period but less than 240 days. By operation
Respondent. of law, therefore, Carcedo’s total and temporary
disability lapsed into a total and permanent disability.43

G.R. No. 206540,
April 20, 2015 - ALICE Even assuming that Dr. Cruz’s 24 March 2009 disability
G. AFRICA, Petitioner, rating were definitive, Carcedo would still have a cause
v. INSURANCE of action for total and permanent disability
SAVINGS AND compensation. Dr. Cruz’s declaration of 8% impediment
INVESTMENT AGENCY, rating was made 63 days from repatriation, within the
INC. (ISIA) 120-day period. However, beyond this period, Carcedo
REPRESENTED BY ITS was still incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties as
PRESIDENT, DELIA DE he was still undergoing medical treatments and was
BORJA; ACTING confined in the hospital. In C.F. Sharp Crew
REGISTER OF DEEDS,
Management, Inc. v. Taok,44 the Court held:
LAS PINAS CITY, ATTY.
ABRAHAM N.
VERMUDEZ, Based on this Court’s pronouncements in
Respondents. Vergara, it is easily discernible that the 120-

day or 240-day period and the obligations the
G.R. No. 196357, law imposed on the employer are
April 20, 2015 - THE determinative of when a seafarer’s cause of
HEIRS OF THE LATE action for total and permanent disability may
DELFIN DELA CRUZ, be considered to have arisen. Thus, a
REPRESENTED BY HIS seafarer may pursue an action for total and

SPOUSE, CARMELITA permanent disability benefits if: (a) the
DELA CRUZ, company-designated physician failed to issue
Petitioners, v. a declaration as to his fitness to engage in
PHILIPPINE sea duty or disability even after the lapse of
TRANSMARINE the 120-day period and there is no indication
CARRIERS, INC., that further medical treatment would address
REPRESENTED BY MR. his temporary total disability, hence, justify
CARLOS C. SALINAS an extension of the period to 240 days; (b)
AND/OR TECTO 240 days had lapsed without any certification
BELGIUM N.V., being issued by the company-designated
Respondent. physician; (c) the company-designated
physician declared that he is fit for sea duty
G.R. No. 204171, within the 120-day or 240-day period, as the
April 15, 2015 - case may be, but his physician of choice and
OFFICE OF THE the doctor chosen under Section 20-B(3) of
OMBUDSMAN, the POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion; (d)
Petitioner, v. the company-designated physician
WILFREDO B. acknowledged that he is partially
AGUSTINO, RUDY G. permanently disabled but other doctors who
CANASTILLO, he consulted, on his own and jointly with his
EDWARD G. employer, believed that his disability is not
CANASTILLO, CECIL only permanent but total as well; (e) the
C. CALIGAN, company-designated physician recognized
Respondent. that he is totally and permanently disabled
but there is a dispute on the disability
G.R. No. 206020, grading; (f) the company-designated
April 14, 2015 - 1- physician determined that his medical
UNITED TRANSPORT condition is not compensable or work-related
KOALISYON (1-UTAK), under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice
Petitioner, v. and the third doctor selected under Section
COMMISSION ON 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise
ELECTIONS, and declared him unfit to work; (g) the
Respondent. company-designated physician declared him
totally and permanently disabled but the
G.R. No. 174202, employer refuses to pay him the
April 07, 2015 - corresponding benefits; and (h) the
DYNAMIC BUILDERS & company-designated physician declared
CONSTRUCTION CO. him partially and permanently disabled
(PHIL.), INC., within the 120-day or 240-day period

Petitioner, v. HON. but he remains incapacitated to perform
RICARDO P. his usual sea duties after the lapse of the
PRESBITERO, JR., said periods.45 (Emphasis supplied)
MAYOR AND HEAD OF
PROCURING UNIT OF
Certification of Fitness for Sea Service
THE MUNICIPALITY OF
VALLADOLID, NEGROS
Neither was there a certification from the company-
OCCIDENTAL; BIDS
designated physician as to Carcedo’s fitness for sea
AND AWARDS
service.
COMMITTEE,
MUNICIPALITY OF
Dr. Cruz’s 24 March 2009 report on the disability grading
VALLADOLID, NEGROS
of Carcedo did not include a certification that he was
OCCIDENTAL; AND
already fit for sea duty. And even if it had, it would be
HENRY L. JORDAN
AND/OR HLJ belied by his subsequent reports on, and the fact of, the
continuation of medical treatments and hospitalization of
CONSTRUCTION AND
Carcedo after the issuance of the 24 March 2009 report.
ENTERPRISE,
However, in Respondents’ Reply to Complainant’s
Respondents.
Position Paper, they wrote:
G.R. No. 208062,

April 07, 2015 -
xxxx
SOCIAL WEATHER
STATIONS, INC. AND
b. Medical Director and PEME doctor Dr. Fe
PULSE ASIA, INC.,
Bacungan clearly opined that complainant’s
Petitioners, v.
amputated right big toe will not in any way
COMMISSION ON
interfere with his current position as Chief
ELECTIONS,
Officer on board.
Respondent.
c. Another PEME doctor Dr. Pascualito Gutay

A.M. No. RTJ-14-
likewise opined that complainant’s current
2402 (Formerly OCA
condition will not render him unfit for further
IPI No. 12-3910-RTJ),
sea duties as Chief Officer onboard.
April 15, 2015 -
JOSEFINA M.
x x x x46
ONGCUANGCO
TRADING
CORPORATION, The Court of Appeals considered the opinions of Dr.
REPRESENTED BY Bacungan and Dr. Gutay as fit for sea duty declarations
JOSEFINA M. of respondents’ designated physicians. We disagree.

ONGCUANGCO, These opinions are not the certifications of fitness for sea
Complainant, v. duty contemplated by the CBA and the POEA-SEC. First,
JUDGE RENATO D. Dr. Bacungan and Dr. Gutay were not the company-
PINLAC, REGIONAL designated physicians assigned to the care of Carcedo.
TRIAL COURT, Second, they were given in response to a hypothetical
BRANCH 57, SAN inquiry by respondents’ counsel.47 Third, neither doctor
CARLOS CITY, examined Carcedo in coming up with their opinions.
PANGASINAN,
Respondent. As discussed above, the determination of the fitness of a
seafarer for sea duty is the province of the company-
G.R. No. 211833, designated physician, subject to the periods prescribed
April 07, 2015 - by law. Hence, we also disagree with the NLRC’s giving
FERDINAND R. credence to the declaration of Dr. Raymundo that
VILLANUEVA, Carcedo was unfit to work as a seaman.
PRESIDING JUDGE,
MCTC, COMPOSTELA- Carcedo consulted Dr. Raymundo more than nine months
NEW BATAAN, since repatriation, and four months since he last
COMPOSTELA VALLEY consulted the company-designated physician. During the
PROVINCE, Petitioner, latter period, Carcedo could have developed any number
v. JUDICIAL AND BAR of conditions that may or may not be related to the
COUNCIL, injury suffered while on board the ship. Notably, Dr.
Respondent. Raymundo’s medical report does not specify what
“condition” of Carcedo was “still in the healing
G. R. No. 171601,
process.”48
April 08, 2015 -
SPOUSES BONIFACIO
In addition, Dr. Raymundo was only consulted after
AND LUCIA PARAS,
Carcedo was treated by the company-designated
Petitioners, v. KIMWA
physician. Dr. Raymundo did not have a chance to
CONSTRUCTION AND
observe Carcedo from the time of his repatriation, and
DEVELOPMENT
was not able to monitor his condition throughout the
CORPORATION,
treatments.
Respondent.
Besides, Dr. Raymundo’s disability assessment includes a

G.R. Nos. 194339-
second ray amputation which he performed on Carcedo.
41, April 20, 2015 -
This, and the amputation of the first toe and its
TERESITA A. CIRON,
metatarsal bone performed by the company-designated
Petitioner, v. MA.
physician, formed the basis of Dr. Raymundo’s unfit for
MERCEDITAS N.
GUTIERREZ, IN HER sea duty declaration. In contrast, the injury diagnosed

OFFICIAL CAPACITY by the doctor at the Yoshino Hospital in Japan and the
AS OMBUDSMAN, initial findings of Dr. Cruz immediately upon repatriation
FLORIZA A. BRIONES only pertain to the first toe. Apart from the vague
AND TERESITA P. mention of a condition that was still in the healing
BUTARDO- TACATA, IN process, there was no indication that the second ray
THEIR OFFICIAL amputation was a consequence of the injury sustained
CAPACITIES AS while on board.
GRAFT
INVESTIGATION & Nevertheless, Carcedo’s disability is deemed total and
PROSECUTION permanent due to the lack of a final disability
OFFICER II OF THE assessment and of a certification of fitness for sea
OFFICE OF THE service from Dr. Cruz.
OMBUDSMAN, NONNA
O. BELTRAN, 2nd Disability Compensation Due
ASSISTANT CITY
PROSECUTOR, RAUL Based on the foregoing discussion, we hold that Carcedo
E. CONTRERAS, CITY is entitled to full disability compensation. As a senior
PROSECUTOR, BOTH officer at the time he was injured, at 100% degree of
OF NATIONAL disability, Carcedo is entitled to US$148,500.00.49
PROSECUTION
OFFICE, IRIGA CITY, Moral and Exemplary Damages
AND SANTIAGO D. and Attorney’s Fees
ORTEGA, JR.,
Respondent. The Labor Arbiter found no basis to award damages and
attorney’s fees. The NLRC likewise did not award
G.R. No. 213214, damages but awarded attorney’s fees. The Court of
April 20, 2015 - Appeals did not award moral and exemplary damages
PEOPLE OF THE but deleted the award of attorney’s fees.
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. EUGENE We find no ground to disturb the following findings of the
SAMUYA, Accused- Court of Appeals:
Appellant.
G.R. No. 213216, As for attorney’s fees, the same may be

awarded if petitioner acted in gross and
April 20, 2015 -
PEOPLE OF THE evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- plaintiff’s plainly valid, just and demandable

claim.
Appellee, v. RICKY
ARGUTA ALIAS "JOEL"

AND WILSON CAHIPE Here [respondents] did not act in bad faith
ALIAS "SIWIT," because they in fact paid all expenses relative
Accused-Appellants. to Carcedo’s treatment and hospitalization.
They even offered to pay disability benefits,
A.C. No. 10303, albeit, Carcedo refused it because he wanted
April 22, 2015 - JOY Grade 1, no less. Too, the assailed decision
A. GIMENO, did not explain the basis for the award of
Complainant, v. ATTY. attorney’s fees.50
PAUL CENTILLAS
ZAIDE, Respondent.
Indeed, the NLRC only included the award of attorney’s
G.R. No. 203530, fees in the dispositive portion of the Decision dated 8
March 2011 without a discussion as to the basis therefor.
April 13, 2015 -
LUZON DEVELOPMENT
BANK, TOMAS A Final Note
CLEMENTE, JR., AND

OSCAR RAMIREZ, In Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency v. Dumadag,51 the
Petitioners, v. Court lamented:
ERLINDA KRISHNAN,
Respondent.
The third-doctor-referral provision of the
POEA-SEC, it appears to us, has been
A.M. No. RTJ-12-
honored more in the breach than in the
2325 (Formerly A.M.
compliance. This is unfortunate considering
No. 12-7-132-RTC),
that the provision is intended to settle
April 14, 2015 -
disability claims voluntarily at the parties’
OFFICE OF THE
level where the claims can be resolved more
COURT
speedily than if they were brought to court.52
ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant, v.
JUDGE ALAN L. In this case, the third-doctor-referral provision did not
FLORES, PRESIDING find application because of the lack of a definitive
JUDGE, REGIONAL disability assessment by the company-designated
TRIAL COURT, physician. However, the respondents believed, nay,
BRANCH 7, TUBOD, insisted, that the 24 March 2009 disability rating of 8%
LANAO DEL NORTE was the final assessment of their designated physician.
AND FORMER ACTING When Carcedo submitted the contrary findings of his
PRESIDING JUDGE, personal physician, respondents presented the opinions
REGIONAL TRIAL of five more doctors, in rebuttal, just to say that Carcedo
COURT, BRANCH 21, could have been declared fit for sea duty if he were to
KAPATAGAN, LANAO re-apply for the same position of chief mate.
DEL NORTE,
Respondent.; A.M. No. At that point in time, the parties were yet before the
RTJ-15-2419 Labor Arbiter, who could have facilitated the election of
(FORMERLY A.M. OCA the third doctor. We would like to remind ship owners,
IPI No. 11-3649-RTJ) manning companies and seafarers of their respective
- PROSECUTOR obligations as regards the third doctor provision. In INC
DIOSDADO D. Shipmanagement, Incorporated v. Rosales, we held:
CABRERA,
Complainant, v.
To definitively clarify how a conflict situation
JUDGE ALAN L.
should be handled, upon notification that the
FLORES, PRESIDING
seafarer disagrees with the company doctor’s
JUDGE, REGIONAL
assessment based on the duly and fully
TRIAL COURT,
disclosed contrary assessment from the
BRANCH 7, TUBOD,
seafarer’s own doctor, the seafarer shall then
LANAO DEL NORTE
signify his intention to resolve the conflict by
AND FORMER ACTING
the referral of the conflicting assessments to
PRESIDING JUDGE,
a third doctor whose ruling, under the POEA-
REGIONAL TRIAL
SEC, shall be final and binding on the parties.
COURT, BRANCH 21,
Upon notification, the company carries the
KAPATAGAN, LANAO
burden of initiating the process for the
DEL NORTE,
referral to a third doctor commonly agreed
Respondent.
between the parties. In Bahia, we said:
G.R. No. 189649, In the absence of any request

April 20, 2015 - from him (as shown by the
ADORACION records of the case), the
CAROLINO (SPOUSE employer-company cannot be
AND IN expected to respond. As the party
SUBSTITUTION OF seeking to impugn the certification
THE DECEASED that the law itself recognizes as
JEREMIAS A. prevailing, Constantino bears the
CAROLINO), burden of positive action to prove
Petitioner, v. GEN. that his doctor’s findings are
GENEROSO SENGA, correct, as well as the burden to
AS CHIEF OF STAFF notify the company that a
OF THE ARMED contrary finding had been made
FORCES OF THE by his own physician. Upon such
PHILIPPINES (AFP); notification, the company must

BRIG. GEN. itself respond by setting into
FERNANDO ZABAT, AS motion the process of choosing a
CHIEF OF THE AFP third doctor who, as the POEA-
FINANCE CENTER; SEC provides, can rule with
COMMO. REYNALDO finality on the disputed medical
BASILIO, AS CHIEF OF situation.53
THE AFP-GHQ
MANAGEMENT AND
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED in part. We
FISCAL OFFICE; AND
COMMO. EMILIO REVERSE the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated 29 June
2012 and Resolution dated 5 October 2012 in CA-G.R. SP
MARAYAG, PENSION
No. 120706. We REINSTATE with MODIFICATION the
AND GRATUITY
OFFICER, PENSION Decision dated 8 March 2011 of the National Labor
Relations Commission in NLRC LAC Case No. 01-000007-
AND GRATUITY
11 (OFW).
MANAGEMENT
CENTER, AFP FINANCE
We order Maine Marine Philippines, Inc. to pay Dario A.
CENTER, Respondent.
Carcedo, or his surviving spouse, Priscilla Dela Cruz-
G.R. No. 183641, Carcedo, the amount of US$148,500.00 only, without

attorney’s fees. The award shall be paid in Philippine
April 22, 2015 -
BENJAMIN pesos, computed at the exchange rate prevailing at the
time of payment.
GUERRERO, Petitioner,
v. DIRECTOR, LAND
MANAGEMENT SO ORDERED.
BUREAU, FLORANTE
EDWARD R. BENITEZ, Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez,* Mendoza, and
PROJECT EVALUATION Leonen, JJ., concur.
OFFICER III, LEGAL

DIVISION; AND HEIRS
Endnotes:
OF MARCELO
BUSTAMANTE,
* Designated acting member per Special
REPRESENTED BY
CORA Z. Order No. 1977 dated 15 April 2015.
BUSTAMANTE,
1 Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil
Respondent.
Procedure.
G.R. No. 205188,
April 22, 2015 - 2Rollo, pp. 36-52. Penned by Associate
REPUBLIC OF THE Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, with Presiding

PHILIPPINES, Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate
REPRESENTED BY Justice Sesinando E. Villon concurring.
HONORABLE
LOURDES M. 3 Id. at 53.
TRASMONTE IN HER
CAPACITY AS 4 CA rollo, pp. 52-60.
UNDERSECRETARY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF
5 Id. at 62-70.
LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, AND
6 In accordance with the Philippine Overseas
AHONORABLE
Employment Administration Standard
JENNIFER JARDIN-
Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), with an
MANALILI, IN HER
overriding IBF JSU/AMOSUP-IMMAJ Collective
CAPACITY AS THEN
Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
PHILIPPINE
OVERSEAS
7 CA rollo, p. 119.
EMPLOYMENT
ADMINISTRATOR,
8 Id. at 120.
Petitioner, v.
HUMANLINK
MANPOWER 9 Id. at 122.
CONSULTANTS, INC.
(FORMERLY MHY NEW 10 Id.
RECRUITMENT
INTERNATIONAL, 11 Id. at 186.
INC.), Respondent.
12 Id. at 123.
G.R. No. 182805,
April 22, 2015 -
13 Id. at 124.
HEIRS OF SERAPIO
MABBORANG:
14 Id. at 186.
LAURIANO
MABBORANG,
DOMINGO 15 Performed on 21 April 2009, id. at 187.
MABBORANG,
ENCARNACION 16 Id. at 178, 187-188.
MABBORANG, FELIX
MABBORANG,
FAUSTINA 17 Id. at 179.

MABBORANG, ELIAS
MABBORANG, 18 Id.
ALBERTA
MABBORANG; HEIRS 19 Id. at 180.
OF REGINO
MABBORANG: JOSE
20 Id. at 74-75.
MABBORANG,
DIONICIA
21 Id. at 184.
MABBORANG, SOTERA
MABBORANG,
22 Id.
MARIANO
MABBORANG; HEIRS
OF SUSANA 23Rollo, pp. 38-40.
MABBORANG:
CECILIA UBINA-OCAB 24 CA rollo, pp. 218-247.
AND CANDIDA U.
TAGUIGA; SEGUNDA 25 Id. at 70.
MABBORANG; HEIRS
OF VICTORINO
26 Id. at 59.
MABBORANG: JUAN
MABBORANG, JR.,
27 Id. at 56.
SERVANDO
MABBORANG; AND
28 510 Phil. 332 (2005).
HEIRS OF VICENTE
MABBORANG:
MARIANO 29 Id. at 340, also quoted in the NLRC
MABBORANG, MARTIN Decision dated 8 March 2011. CA rollo, p. 58.
MABBORANG, LUZ
MABBORANG- 30 CA rollo, pp. 71-73.
CARILLO, Petitioners,
v. HERMOGENES 31 Id. at 3-50.
MABBORANG AND
BENJAMIN
32Rollo, p. 52.
MABBORANG,
Respondent.
33 Id. at 15-16.
A.M. No. P-12-3092

34 CA rollo, pp. 168-169.
(Formerly A.M. No.
12-7-54-MTC), April
14, 2015 - OFFICE OF 35 Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC reads:
THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, xxxx
Complainant, v.
3. Upon sign-off from the vessel
REMEDIOS R. VIESCA,
CLERK OF COURT II, for medical treatment, the
seafarer is entitled to sickness
MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT OF SAN allowance equivalent to his basic
ANTONIO, NUEVA wage until he is declared fit to

work or the degree of permanent
ECIJA, Respondent.
disability has been assessed by
G.R. Nos. 211933 the company-designated physician

but in no case shall this period
& 211960, April 15,
2015 - ROBERTA S. exceed one hundred twenty (120)
days.
SALDARIEGA,
Petitioner, v. HON.
ELVIRA D.C. For this purpose, the seafarer
shall submit himself to a post-
PANGANIBAN,
PRESIDING JUDGE, employment medical examination
BRANCH 227, by a company designated

physician within three working
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, NATIONAL days upon his return except when
CAPITAL REGION, he is physically incapacitated to

do so. In which case, a written
QUEZON CITY AND
PEOPLE OF THE notice to the agency within the
same period is deemed as
PHILIPPINES,
compliance. Failure of the seafarer
Respondent.
to comply with the mandatory
reporting requirement shall result
G.R. No. 179334,
in his forfeiture of the right to
April 21, 2015 -
SECRETARY OF THE claim the above benefits.
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND If a doctor appointed by the
HIGHWAYS AND seafarer disagrees with the

assessment, a third doctor
DISTRICT ENGINEER
CELESTINO R. may be agreed jointly between
the Employer and the seafarer.
CONTRERAS,
The third doctor’s decision
Petitioners, v.
SPOUSES HERACLEO shall be final and binding.

AND RAMONA (Emphasis supplied)
TECSON,
36 521 Phil. 330 (2006).
Respondents.
37 Id. at 346-347.
G.R. No. 201146,
April 15, 2015 -
PEOPLE OF THE 38 588 Phil. 895 (2008).
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee, v. MICHAEL 39 Id. at 912.
ROS Y ORTEGA,
RODOLFO JUSTO, JR. 40 G.R. No. 198501, 30 January 2013, 689
Y CALIFLORES, AND
SCRA 795.
DAVID NAVARRO Y
MINAS, Appellants.
41 Id. at 809-810.
A.C. No. 9868

42 CA rollo. p. 180.
[formerly CBD Case
No. 05-1617], April
43Libang v. Indochina Ship Management,
22, 2015 - ATTY.
ALFREDO L. Inc., G.R. No. 189863, 17 September 2014.
VILLAMOR, JR.,
Complainant, v. 44 G.R. No. 193679, 18 July 2012, 677 SCRA
ATTYS. E. HANS A. 296.
SANTOS AND AGNES
H. MARANAN, 45 Id. at 314-315.
Respondents.
46 CA rollo, p. 221.
G.R. No. 200465,
April 20, 2015 - 47 On 29 March 2010, Dr. Bacungan wrote:
JOCELYN ASISTIO Y
CONSINO, Petitioner,
“This has reference to your inquiry regarding
v. PEOPLE OF THE
a 51 year chief officer who suffered from
PHILIPPINES AND
gangrenous right big toe after an accident
MONICA NEALIGA,
that requred surgery, partial amputation of
Respondent.
the right big toe, which is already healed
according to the attending doctor. In my
G.R. Nos. 192698-
medical opinion the partially amputated right
99, April 22, 2015 -
RAYMUNDO E. big toe will not interfere with his position and
ZAPANTA, Petitioner, job as chief officer.” (Id. at 335)
v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, On 7 April 2010, Dr. Gutay wrote:
Respondent.
“Absence of big toe is not a disqualifier for
G.R. No. 197597, sea service as it does not necessarily affect
April 08, 2015 - IN functional capacity of the lower extremity or
THE MATTER OF THE functional capacity of the feet. Likewise, it
PETITION FOR does not put an individual in any additional
HABEAS CORPUS OF risk for injury or disable him from performing
DATUKAN MALANG safety sensitive functions.
SALIBO, DATUKAN
MALANG SALIBO, Further, there is no medical fitness standards
Petitioner, v. WARDEN, for sailors that make absence of big toe a
QUEZON CITY JAIL disqualifier for sea service.” (Id. at 336)
ANNEX, BJMP
BUILDING, CAMP On 29 April 2010, Dr. Bacungan again wrote:
BAGONG DIWA,
TAGUIG CITY AND ALL “This has reference to your inquiry regarding
OTHER PERSONS the case of Dario Carcedo, who underwent
ACTING ON HIS amputation of the first and second toe of the
BEHALF AND/OR left foot.
HAVING CUSTODY OF
DATUKAN MALANG According to our Orthopedic Surgeon, Dr.
SALIBO, Respondents. Albert Dy, the above patient can still assume
his work as seaman provided the nature of
G.R. No. 159611, his job is supervisory.” (Id. at 334)
April 22, 2015 -
HEIRS OF ANTERO 48 Id. at 184.
SOLIVA, Petitioner, v.
SEVERINO, JOEL, 49 CA rollo, p. 125. The table of Degree of
GRACE, CENON, JR.,
Disability and Rate of Compensation is also
RENATO, EDUARDO,
quoted above.
HILARIO, ALL
SURNAMED SOLIVA, 50Rollo, p. 50.
ROGELIO V. ROLEDA,
AND SANVIC
51 G.R. No. 194362, 26 June 2013, 700 SCRA
ENTERPRISES, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS 53.

MANAGER, SANTOS
PORAQUE, 52 Id. at 67.
Respondents.
53 G.R. No. 195832, 1 October 2014; quoting

G.R. No. 212381,
Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. v. Constantino,
April 22, 2015 -
G.R. No. 180343, 9 July 2014.
REYNALDO M.
JACOMILLE, Petitioner,
v. HON. JOSEPH
EMILIO A. ABAYA, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS
Back to Home | Back to Main
SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION
AND
COMMUNICATIONS
(DOTC); ATTY.
ALFONSO V. TAN, JR.,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS
ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE
LAND
TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE (LTO); HON.
FLORENCIO ABAD, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF
BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT (DBM);
HON. ARSENIO M.
BALISACAN, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS
DIRECTOR GENERAL
OF THE NATIONAL
ECONOMIC AND
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (NEDA);
HON. MARIA GRACIA
M. PULIDO TAN, IN
HER CAPACITY AS
CHAIRPERSON OF THE
COMMISSION ON
AUDIT (COA) AND
POWER PLATES
DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPTS, INC.,/J.
KNIERIEM B.V. GOES
(JKG) (JOINT
VENTURE)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING
DIRECTOR,
CHRISTIAN S.
CALALANG,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 202331,

April 22, 2015 - THE
PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT OF
AURORA, Petitioner, v.
HILARIO M. MARCO,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 197562,

April 20, 2015 -
AURORA ENGSON
FRANSDILLA,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 180771,

April 21, 2015 -
RESIDENT MARINE
MAMMALS OF THE
PROTECTED
SEASCAPE TANON
STRAIT, E.G.,
TOOTHED WHALES,
DOLPHINS,
PORPOISES, AND
OTHER CETACEAN
SPECIES, JOINED IN
AND REPRESENTED
HEREIN BY HUMAN
BEINGS GLORIA
ESTENZO RAMOS AND
ROSE-LIZA EISMA-
OSORIO, IN THEIR
CAPACITY AS LEGAL
GUARDIANS OF THE
LESSER LIFE-FORMS
AND AS RESPONSIBLE
STEWARDS OF GOD'S
CREATIONS,
Petitioners, v.
SECRETARY ANGELO
REYES, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY (DOE),
SECRETARY JOSE L.
ATIENZA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
(DENR), LEONARDO
R. SIBBALUCA, DENR
REGIONAL DIRECTOR-
REGION VII AND IN
HIS CAPACITY AS
CHAIRPERSON OF THE
TANON STRAIT
PROTECTED
SEASCAPE
MANAGEMENT
BOARD, BUREAU OF
FISHERIES AND
AQUATIC RESOURCES
(BFAR), DIRECTOR
MALCOLM I.
SARMIENTO, JR.,
BFAR REGIONAL
DIRECTOR FOR
REGION VII ANDRES
M. BOJOS, JAPAN
PETROLEUM
EXPLORATION CO.,
LTD. (JAPEX), AS
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PHILIPPINE AGENT,
SUPPLY OILFIELD
SERVICES, INC.,
Respondents.; G.R.
No. 181527 -
CENTRAL VISAYAS
FISHERFOLK
DEVELOPMENT
CENTER (FIDEC),
CERILO D.
ENGARCIAL, RAMON
YANONG, FRANCISCO
LABID, IN THEIR
PERSONAL CAPACITY
AND AS
REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE SUBSISTENCE
FISHERFOLKS OF THE
MUNICIPALITIES OF
ALOGUINSAN AND
PINAMUNGAJAN,
CEBU, AND THEIR
FAMILIES, AND THE

PRESENT AND
FUTURE
GENERATIONS OF
FILIPINOS WHOSE
RIGHTS ARE
SIMILARLY AFFECTED,
Petitioners, v.
SECRETARY ANGELO
REYES, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY (DOE), JOSE
L. ATIENZA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
(DENR), LEONARDO
R. SIBBALUCA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS DENR
REGIONAL DIRECTOR-
REGION VII AND AS
CHAIRPERSON OF THE
TAÑON STRAIT
PROTECTED
SEASCAPE
MANAGEMENT
BOARD, ALAN
ARRANGUEZ, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS
DIRECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
BUREAU-REGION VII,
DOE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR FOR
REGION VIII1
ANTONIO LABIOS,
JAPAN PETROLEUM
EXPLORATION CO.,
LTD. (JAPEX), AS
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PHILIPPINE AGENT,
SUPPLY OILFIELD
SERVICES, INC.,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 202950,

April 06, 2015 -
BALTAZAR IBOT,
Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF
FRANCISCO TAYCO,
REPRESENTED BY
FLORA TAYCO, WILLY
TAYCO AND MERLYN T.
BULANTE,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 187013,

April 22, 2015 -
SPOUSES MAGDALINO
AND CLEOFE
BADILLA, Petitioners,
v. FE BRAGAT,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 194642,

April 06, 2015 -
NUNELON R.
MARQUEZ, Petitioner,
v. ELISAN CREDIT
CORPORATION,
Respondents.
A.M. No. 07-11-14-

SC, April 14, 2015 -
RE: LETTER OF
ERLINDA ILUSORIO-
BILDNER, POTC,
PHILCOMSAT,
REQUESTING
INVESTIGATION OF
CERTAIN MEMBERS OF
THE JUDICIARY
G.R. No. 209331,

April 24, 2015 -
DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE,
REPRESENTED BY
HON. CESAR V.
PURISIMA IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS SECRETARY, AND
THE BUREAU OF
CUSTOMS,
REPRESENTED BY
HON. ROZZANO
RUFINO B. BIAZON,
IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS
COMMISSIONER OF
CUSTOMS, Petitioners,
v. HON. MARINO M.
DELA CRUZ, JR., IN
HIS CAPACITY AS
EXECUTIVE JUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, MANILA, HON.
FELICITAS O. LARON-
CACANINDIN, IN HER
CAPACITY AS
PRESIDING JUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, MANILA,
BRANCH 17, RONNIE
C. SILVESTRE,
EDWARD P. DELA
CUESTA, ROGEL C.
GATCHALIAN, IMELDA
D.CRUZ, LILIBETH S.
SANDAG, RAYMOND P.
VENTURA, MA. LIZA S.
TORRES, ARNEL C.
ALCARAZ, MA.
LOURDES V.
MANGAOANG,
FRANCIS AGUSTIN Y.
ERPE, CARLOS T. SO,
MARIETTA D.
ZAMORANOS,
CARMELITA M.
TALUSAN,1 AREFILES
H. CARREON,2 AND
ROMALINO G.
VALDEZ,
Respondents.
Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz

5 Carcedo v. Maine Marine PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

5 Carcedo v. Maine Marine PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/3/2020 G.R. No. 203804, April 15, 2015 - DARIO A.

ARIO A. CARCEDO (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE PRISCILLA DELA CRUZ-CARCEDO), Petitioner, …

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

April 2015 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 >

G.R. No. 203804, April 15, 2015 - DARIO A. CARCEDO

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

DARIO A. CARCEDO (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE

Before the Court is a petition for review1 assailing the

Decision2 dated 29 June 2012 and Resolution3 dated 5

120706, nullifying the Decision4 dated 8 March 2011 of

Decision5 dated 30 November 2010 of the Labor Arbiter

On 6 August 2008, Dario A. Carcedo (Carcedo) was hired

M/V Speedwell under contract for nine months,6 with a

Carcedo underwent the Pre-Employment Medical

In November 2008, Carcedo’s foot was wounded because

gave him antibiotics and allowed him to resume work.7

pain in the back of his swollen leg and developed fever

On 19 January 2009, he was treated at the Yoshino

Carcedo was repatriated on 20 January 2009. He was

dated 26 January 2009,9 he stated:

The patient underwent debridement of the

Carcedo also underwent disarticulation of the right big

toe on 26 January 2009.11 He was discharged from the

hospital on 12 February 2009.12

On 24 March 2009, Dr. Cruz recommended “an

toe) and some of its metatarsal bone.”13

Due to infection of the amputated stump, Carcedo was

intravenous antibiotics.14 While confined in the hospital,

metatarsal bone.15 He also underwent curettage and

serial debridements of the wound.16 On 27 May 2009,

from Dr. Cruz:17

ChanRobles CPA The patient was discharged today from the

Review Online hospital. The wound of the right foot is still

He is advised to continue daily wound care.18

On his follow-up consultation on 15 June 2009, Dr. Cruz

There is x x x good granulation tissue on the

advised to continue his medications.19

Meanwhile, Carcedo consulted orthopedic surgeon, Dr.

Medical Report21 dated 16 March 2010 reads:

The patient saw me last October 29 and was

he underwent an amputation of the 2nd ray of

I told him that with his present condition

The Court of Appeals summarized the

In his position paper, Carcedo averred: (1)

condition would get restored and he could

Drive a New Raymundo recommended, viz: “x x x with his

RS mate on board”; (3) he suffered severe

the CBA further stated:

28.4 The Company shall provide

since Carcedo’s injury fell under ‘Loss of 1st

(2) the disability assessment of the company-

In Respondents’ Reply to Complainant’s Position Paper,24

The Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

On 30 November 2010, Labor Arbiter Patricio Libo-on

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

The Labor Arbiter held that the contract between the

The Ruling of the NLRC

On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

April-2015 instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The

Jurisprudence decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET