Professional Documents
Culture Documents
L/epublit of Tbe Jbilippine Upreme Tourt: Jtilanila
L/epublit of Tbe Jbilippine Upreme Tourt: Jtilanila
~upreme <tourt
Jtilanila
SECOND DIVISION
- versus - Present:
x------------------------------------------x
- versus -
Promulgated:
JOSEPH MARTINEZ,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------------------ ------
DECISION
Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando per Raffle dated
Febma<y 2 4, 2020. /
Decision 2 G.R. Nos. 237373 & 237378
Facts
1
Not attached to the rollo.
1
Rollo (G.. R. No. 237378), pp. 34-60.
3
Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justices
Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of th is Court),
concurring; id. at 15-24.
4
Id. at 26-30.
5
Id. at 17.
/
Decision 3 G.R. Nos. 237373 & 237378
SO ORDERED.6
Hence, OSG and Pacific Ocean Manning appealed the above Decision
to the NLRC.
6
Id.at17- 18.
Decision 4 G.R. Nos. 237373 & 237378
NLRC Ruling
7
ld. at l8.
8
Id. at 23 .
9
Id. at 30.
/
Decision 5 G.R. Nos. 237373 & 237378
of Time to File Petition Under Rule 45 10 which was docketed as G.R. No.
23 73 73. On the other hand, OSG and Pacific Ocean Manning filed a
Petition for Review on Certiorari 11 which was docketed as G.R. No. 237378.
Both cases were accordingly consolidated.
In their petition, OSG and Pacific Ocean Manning posed the sole
issue, to wit:
10
Rollo (G.. R. No. 237373), pp. 3-5.
11
Id. (G..R. No. 237378), at 34-60.
12
/
Id. (G.. R. No. 237373), at 12-1 3.
Decision 6 G.R. Nos. 237373 & 237378
In this case, OSG and Pacific Ocean Manning argued that Martinez'
illness, which is not listed as a disability under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC
nor listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-A of the same rule, is
not work-related since there is no causal connection between the nature of
his employment and his illness. This, however, is a factual issue that is
generally not reviewable in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 14
It is, however, settled in this jurisdiction that this Court may examine
the CA's Decision from the prism of whether the latter had correctly
determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the
NLRC's Decision. 16 In this case, the Court finds no reversible error on the
part of the CA when it declared that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse
of discretion in affirming the ruling of the LA that Martinez' illness is work-
related and compensable.
13
Since Martinez was hired in 20 14, it is the 20 IO POEA-SEC (Amended Standard Tenns and Conditions
Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships) under
Philippine Overseas Employment Authority (POEA) Memorandum Circular No. 0 I 0-10 which is
applicable in this case.
14
Menez v. Status Maritime Corporation, G.R. No. 227523, August 29, 2018.
15
Monana v. MEC Global Shipmanagement and Manning Corporation, 746 Phil. 736, 749(20 14).
16
Quebral v. Angbus Construction, Inc., 798 Phil. 179, 187(2016).
/
Decision 7 G.R. Nos. 237373 & 237378
17
Rollo (G..R. No. 237378), pp. 2 1~22. (Citations omitted)
18
ld. at 2 1.
Decision 8 G.R. Nos. 237373 & 237378
Further, the Court find s no merit in the contention of OSG and Pacific
Ocean Manning that Martinez has no cause of action at the time of the filing
of his complaint. Contrary to their position, Martinez need not have to
consult and to secure a medical ce1iification from his private doctor that he
is totally and permanently disabled before he could file his complaint on 17
November 2014, which is 154 days from the time he was repatriated.
19
Ta/aroc v. Arpaphil Shipping Corporation, 8 17 Phil. 598, 6 11 (2017), citing Article 198 (c) (I) of the
Labor Code, and Section 2 (b), Ru le VII of the AREC.
20 Id.
21
Id. at 6 11 , citing Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., 588 Phi l. 895. 911-9 12 (2008).
22
Id. at 61 1-6 12, citing £/burg Ship111anage,nent Phils. , Inc. v. Quiogue. Jt, 765 Phil. 34 1, 361-362
(20 15).
/
Decision 9 G.R. Nos. 237373 & 237378
120 days. Necessarily, there was no point of extending the period because
the disability suffered by the Martinez was permanent. Consequently, by
operation of law, Martinez' illness is deemed permanent and total as of the
date of the expiration of the 120-day period counted from his repatriation to
the Philippines. Hence, by the time that Martinez filed his labor complaint
th
on the 154 day from his repatriation, his illness is already deemed total and
permanent. Coupled with the presumption that a seafarer's injury or illness
during the term of his employment contract is work-related, which remained
unrebutted by the incomplete and unce1iain 26 June 2014 medical report of
the company-designated doctor, Martinez certainly has a cause of action
against OSG and Pacific Ocean Manning when he filed his complaint. He
was under no obligation to consult with a physician of his choice under the
given circumstances.
Finally, the Court rejects the argument of Martinez that the instant
petition is rendered moot and academic by virtue of the fact that he had
already received in full amount the judgment award granted by the LA
through a conditional satisfaction of the judgment award.
I
Decision 10 G.R. Nos. 237373 & 237378
SO ORDERED.
EDGL.LOSSANTOS
Associate Justice
24
See Hernandez v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, G.. R. No. 226103, January 24 , 201 8, citing
Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Legaspi, 71 0 Phil. 838, 849-850 (201 3). (Emphasis supplied)
Decision 11 G.R. Nos. 237373 & 237378
WE CONCUR:
ESTELA~~BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson
HE B. INTING
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
IAQiAJJ~
ESTELA M.IPERLAS-BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION