Professional Documents
Culture Documents
John Kaven Disability Complaint Vs Lydia Mar Reply
John Kaven Disability Complaint Vs Lydia Mar Reply
COMPLAINANT’S REPLY
1
With indicated address at Suite E, 11th Floor, GE Antonio Bldg., TM Kalaw St., Ermita, Manila.
2
25 Possidonous Avenue, GR 18344 Moschato, Greece
3
Jointly impleaded as a necessary Party, Ms. Brenda being no other that the responsible Corporate Officer for
Lydia Mar (Philippines), Inc.
TO RESPONDENTS’ POSITION PAPER
PREFATORY
Respondents preface their Position Paper with the trite reminder that
labor laws are not meant to be swords to oppressed the employers when they
are clearly in the right.
With due respect, this case is NOT one of those imagined cases by the
Respondents where the employers are in the right and being oppressed. It is
the other way around.
4
Please see the Supreme Court Decisions in Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission, 521 Phil. 330, 347
(2006) [Per J. Puno, Second Division) citing Philippine Transmarine Carriers v. NLRC, 405 Phil. 487 (2001) [Per J.
Quisumbing, Second Division].
It is well to note the unequivocal words of the High Court in Philippine
Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. NLRC, 405 Phil. 487, 495 (2001), citing Wallem
Maritime Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, 376 Phil. 738, 749 (1999), viz:
What is obvious is that the CDP merely went through the motions and
has no sufficient justification to extend the period. The interim disability
previously issued which is a Grade 7 is in fact unchanged.
On the pretext of calling John Kaven for a follow-up, the CDP made it
appear that John Kaven was called for a follow-up on a very short notice on
June 10, 2022, which is two days before the deadline within which he must
issue a final assessment.
Obviously, the CDP was wary of the period being about to end and acted
on a subterfuge calling John Kaven for a follow-up on June 10, 2022. The alleged
follow-up call is pure canard as the previous meeting never indicated a follow-
up consultation.
What was evident is that the company physician has desperately sued
for time as he was not able to issue a final assessment to meet the deadline on
June 12, 2022. Such monumental lapse is a clear abdication of the positive
duty given to Dr. Nicomedes Cruz.
Here, the law has effectively stepped in to break the impasse and
whatever disability Joh Kaven had, the same has been effectively transformed
to one that is total and permanent.
The rules require that the medical assessment must be final, complete
and definitive and, as currently stands, adhere to the 120/240 window
evolved in Kestrel and Vergara and the twin requirements in Dario Carcedo vs
Maine Marine. Failure and shortcomings from any of the foregoing
requirements, perforce, the law is deemed to effectively step in to fill the void,
characterizing whatever disability that the seafarer has, into one that is
Permanent and Total. The requirements are deemed built-in safeguards to
dissuade a situation where the company doctor can simply defeat the claims if
the time to issue when is entirely dependent on him. In which case, the doctor
may just simply sit back idly and issue no medical report at all, all the while
putting the seafarer to an interminable waiting game.
The seafarer has the statutory and substantial right to contest the
findings and he may seek a second opinion from a specialist of his own
choosing. In such classic impasse, where the first clash with the second, the
seafarer is obliged to contest anew the first medical report by initiating the
third doctor process in the hope that the third opinion will confirm the second
medical opinion.
Where the third medical opinion did not come about due to the failure
of the claimant to initiate one, the courts are bound to uphold the first medical
opinion.
Even if the claimant failed to seek a third opinion, the court may not
uphold the first medical opinion simply as the gospel truth. Where it is
attended by apparent bias, where the conclusions are unsupported, or when
the findings are sham and merely intended to co-opt the wishes of the
employer, there is no rule forbidding the court or tribunal from junking the
first medical opinion, and, on the basis of the inherent merits, upheld the
opinion of the private specialist.
It is well to point out that in disability compensation, "it is not the injury
which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting in the
impairment of one's earning capacity."5
Thusly:
5
Please see the Supreme Court Decisions in Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission, 521 Phil. 330, 347
(2006) [Per J. Puno, Second Division) citing Philippine Transmarine Carriers v. NLRC, 405 Phil. 487 (2001) [Per J.
Quisumbing, Second Division].
6
677 Phil. 262 (2011) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
Total disability refers to an employee's
inability to perform his or her usual work. It does
not require total paralysis or complete
helplessness.
We hasten to add that settled is the rule that for illness or injury to be
compensable, it is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole
and only reason for the injury and disability suffered by the seafarer. Thus, in
7
Kindly see Sunit v. OSM Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 223035, February 27, 2017 <
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/february2017/223035.pdf > [Per J.
Velasco, Third Division). See also Fair Shipping Corp. v. Medel, 693 Phil. 516 (2012) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First
Division].
8
759 Phil. 514 (2015).
9
Same Case citation at page 526 thereof.
David v. OSG Ship Management Manila, Inc., the high court did not mince
words holding as follows:
10
David v. OSG Ship Management Manila, Inc., G.R. NO. 197205, September 26, 2012, citing Nisda v. Sea Serve
Maritime Agency, G.R. NO. 179177, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 668, 699; NYK-Fil Ship Management v. Talavera, G.R.
NO. 175894, November 14, 2008, 571 SCRA 183, 198.
duly designated company physician, Complainant remains incapacitated to
work.
Disability claims are determined by law, the contracts and the medical
findings. To take a leaf from the Court’s myriad decisions, the entitlement or,
conversely, the non-entitlement, of a seafarer to disability claims is not only
governed by the medical findings, but by law (the Labor Code) and the terms
of the contract executed between and among them: the POEA-SEC by
incorporation11 to the actual contract, the Contract of Employment,
11
That all provisions of the POEA-SEC are standard and deemed integral part of any contract of employment
binding the parties to at least comply with barest minimum terms and conditions deemed acceptable by law, and
case law and as updated by timely revisions made by the regulatory body, the POEA-SEC. This is to ensure that the
minimum terms and standards for all contract of employment, minimum labor standards and terms of
employment, are adhered to by the parties to the contract and, obviously, on the consideration and concern that
the worker is not put into disadvantage. The Court has aptly stated:
Courts and labor tribunals are not bound by the medical findings of the
company physician such that the repetitive arguments of manning agencies
that the company-designated physician is more controlling than any other
medical findings have become passé.
The more correct rule is that the courts and labor tribunals are not
bound by the medical findings because they are ordained to look and inquire
as to the real condition of the seafarer. In which case, the rule of thumb is to
delve and weigh the inherent merits of the contentious medical opinions. They
are to be appraised based on their inherent merits.
A contract is the law between the parties, which in this case are the CBA
and the POEA-SEC. The CBA contains the following pertinent medical and
disability provisions:
“A seafarer who suffers permanent disability
but excluding permanent disability due to wilful
acts, shall in addition to sick pay, be entitled to
compensation according to the provisions of this
Agreement.”
Based on the CBA, there are three instances when a seafarer may be
entitled to 100% disability compensation. These are: (1) when the seafarer is
declared to have suffered 100% disability; (2) when the seafarer is assessed
with disability of at least 50%; and (3) when the seafarer, while assessed at
below 50% disability, is certified as permanently unfit for sea service.
However, it is not only the contract between the parties that governs the
determination of the disability compensation due the seafarer. The Court has
ruled that the provisions on disability of the Labor Code and the Amended
Rules on Employee Compensation (AREC) implementing Title II, Book IV of
the Labor Code are applicable to the case of seafarers.
12
521 Phil. 330 (2006).
best terms and conditions of employment of
Filipino contract workers and ensure
compliance therewith” and to “promote and
protect the well-being of Filipino workers
overseas.” Section 29 of the 1996 POEA SEC
itself provides that “[a]ll rights and obligations
of the parties to [the] Contract, including the
annexes thereof, shall be governed by the laws
of the Republic of the Philippines, international
conventions, treaties and covenants where the
Philippines is a signatory.” Even without this
provision, a contract of labor is so impressed
with public interest that the New Civil Code
expressly subjects it to “the special laws on
labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and
lockouts, closed shop, wages, working
conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.”
Thus, the Court has applied the Labor Code concept of permanent total
disability to the case of seafarers. In Philippine Transmarine Carriers v.
NLRC, seaman Carlos Nietes was found to be suffering from congestive heart
failure and cardiomyopathy and was declared as unfit to work by the
company-accredited physician.
x x x x
SECTION 2. Disability. x x x
13
521 Phil. 330 (2006).
The above rule pertains to Section 2, Rule X of the AREC:
14
588 Phil. 895 (2008).
under the POEA Standard Employment Contract
and by applicable Philippine laws. If the 120 days
initial period is exceeded and no such
declaration is made because the seafarer
requires further medical attention, then the
temporary total disability period may be
extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject
to the right of the employer to declare within
this period that a permanent partial or total
disability already exists. The seaman may of
course also be declared fit to work at any time such
declaration is justified by his medical
condition. (Emphasis supplied)
15
The Court could have not been way clearer on this point in Kestrel
Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar16 which held that the declaration by the company-
designated physician is an obligation, the abdication of which transforms the
temporary total disability to permanent total disability, regardless of the
disability grade, viz:
17
G.R. No. 198501, 30 January 2013, 689 SCRA 795.
As explained by the Court in Pelagio v. Philippine Transmarine
Carriers, Inc:18
20
Id. at 251.
We cannot simply agree that the haphazardly issued Certificate of Final
Assessment made by the company-designated doctor, is the Medical Report
that is definitive, complete and final as contemplated by the rules.
To our mind, the said disability assessment was an interim one because
JOHN KAVEN, in fact continued to require medical treatments and
management that extended even after his treatment with the CDP and that he
was still being prescribed heart medications by Dr. Antonio Pascual way
beyond six months after repatriation.
Verily, he was certainly still under total disability at that time and, even
at present, he has not been able to resume seafaring work of any kind.
We can all easily agree that his disability is a Permanent Total Disability.
Despite his medical treatment at the hands of the company physicians, the
treatment and at home medications extended to beyond six months from
repatriation.
Indeed, John Kaven continues to suffer to this very day a Permanent and
Total Disability and, by all means, he is entitled to the allowable maximum
benefits under the prevailing CBA.
23
Fil-Star Maritime Corporation v. Rosete, G.R. No. 192686, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 247, 255, citing Seagull
Shipmanagement and Transport, Inc. v. NLRC, 388 Phil. 906, 914 (2000), citing More Maritime Agencies, Inc. v.
NLRC, 366 Phil. 646, 654-655 (1999).
24
David v. OSG Ship Management Manila, Inc., supra
In fact, it allows a third opinion in case the seafarer’s doctor disagrees
with the assessment of the company-designated physician. Therefore, the
provision should not be construed that it is only the company-designated
physician who could assess the condition and declare the disability of seamen.
THE PROVISION DOES NOT SERVE AS A LIMITATION BUT RATHER A
GUARANTEE OF PROTECTION TO OVERSEAS WORKERS.
Most apropos, the company doctor has committed abject failure to issue
a complete and definitive medical report and, in the process, failing to give a
clear assessment and fitness for seafaring work of John Kaven.
Verily, the law has already stepped in and whatever disability Chief
Cook John Kaven Gonzales had, by legal fiction, has now been transmogrified
to a permanent and total one. Without doubt, this is irrefutable from the
records.
There is more than enough basis to award damages and attorney’s fees.
OTHER RELIEFS, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise
prayed for.
By:
ARNOLD M. BURIGSAY
IBP No. 260805 January 5, 2023
PTR NO. 0862689
January 4, 2023; Manila
Roll No. 43265
MCLE No. VII- 0028015
April 14, 2023; Pasig City
Tel No. 564-49-00/6646124
amburigsaylaw@gmail.com
Copy Furnished:
EXPLANATION: