31\epublic of tbe llbilippines

$,Upreme QI:ourt
;fflaniln

SECOND DIVISION

WARREN A. REUYAN, G.R. No. 250203

Petitioner,

Present:
- versus -
LEONEN, S.A.J, Chairperson,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
INC NAVIGATION CO. PHILS., LOPEZ, M.,
INC., INTERORIENT MARINE LOPEZ, J., and
SERVICES LTD., and KHO, JR., JJ
REYNALDO L. RAMIREZ,
Respondents.
Promulgated:

OEC072022 ~
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

KHO, JR., J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari 1 filed under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court are the Decision2 dated June 28, 2019 and the
Resolution3 dated October 24, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
SP No. 153375, which affirmed the Decision4 dated June 28, 2017 and the
Resolution 5 dated August 31, 2017 of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. (OFW-M) 04-000308-17, finding
petitioner Warren A. Reuyan (petitioner) not entitled to total and permanent
disability benefits.

1
Rollo, pp. 29-64.
2
Id. at 13-23. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin with Associate Justices Ramon M.
Bato, Jr. and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring.
3
Id. at 25-26.
4
Id. at 155-167. Penned by Commissioner Gina F. Cenit-Escoto with Presiding Commissioner Gerardo
C. Nograles and Commissioner Romeo L. Go, concurring.
5
Id.at169-170.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 250203

The Facts

Petitioner was employed as an Ordinary Seaman by respondent INC

Navigation Co. Phils., Inc. for and on behalf of its principal, Interorient
Marine Services Ltd. (respondents), on board M/V Jork Valiant under a seven
(7)-month contract signed by the parties and approved by the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). On November 28, 2015,
petitioner boarded the vessel. 6

Petitioner alleged that sometime in February 2016, he developed an

enlarging mass on his neck while on board the vessel. On March 2, 2016, he
developed a fever and chills, prompting him to request for a medical check-
up. Petitioner averred that the vessel's captain told him to wait until the next
port in Athens, Greece. On March 9, 2016, he consulted a doctor in Athens
and found out through a neck CT scan that he has a "palpable mass at
approximately 4 cm the right side of the thyroid gland pain on palpation" 7 and
"enlarged node approximately 3[.]5 cm of the thyroid gland at the right si[d]e
complicated by bleeding." 8 He underwent another check-up and his final
medical report recommended thyroidectomy. 9

Consequently, he was medically repatriated on March 13, 2016.

Petitioner claimed that upon his repatriation, he immediately reported to his
manning agency and was referred to a company-designated physician at NGC
Medical Specialist Clinic, Inc. where he underwent neck ultrasound and was
recommended to undergo surgery. On April 6, 2016, he was admitted at
Manila Doctors Hospital for his surgery. The mass recovered from him was
then biopsied and the results revealed that he has papillary thyroid carcinoma.
He was then readmitted to the hospital on May 13, 2016 for complete
thyroidectomy and later discharged on June 5, 2016. On September 2, 2016,
petitioner alleged that the company-designated physician recommended
radiation therapy but said treatment was discontinued by respondents. This
prompted petitioner to seek treatment and ask for an independent assessment
of his medical condition from Dr. Emmanuel Trinidad (Dr. Trinidad) who
declared him to be unfit for sea duty and that his illness, papillary thyroid
carcinoma, is work-related/aggravated. Thus, petitioner was constrained to
file a complaint for, inter alia, disability benefits against respondents. 10

For their part, respondents denied petitioner's claims, contending that

petitioner's illness was not work-related and that there wa~ no accident nor
incident on board the vessel related to the health of petitioner aside from the
manifestation of his condition, as admitted by petitioner in his consultation
with the physician in Athens. Respondents fmiher alleged that upon

6 Id. at 14.
7
Id. at 253.
8
Id.
9
Id. at 14.
10
Id. at 14-15.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 250203

repatriation, petitioner was placed under the care of the company-designated

physicians ofNGC Medical Specialist Clinic, Inc. led by Dr. Nicomedes Cruz
(Dr. Cruz). He was treated from March 15, 2016 to August 31, 2016 or for a
total of 169 days. Respondents maintained that petitioner's true state of health
was ascertained with specialized diagnostic examinations and tests such as
ultrasound and that he underwent thyroidectomy to alleviate his condition.
Respondents further claimed that petitioner was provided with a medical
regimen and regular physical examination to monitor his condition and ensure
his recovery. Respondents averred that petitioner's illness, papillary
carcinoma of the thyroid, was found not to be work-related, as affirmed by the
medical assessment 11 dated September 23, 2016. Finally, respondents alleged
that petitioner was fully paid of his sickness allowance as shown by four (4)
cash vouchers signed by him. 12

The LA Ruling

In a Decision 13 dated January 12, 2017, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled
that petitioner was suffering from a work-related permanent and total
disability. Accordingly, respondents were ordered to solidarily pay petitioner
permanent and total disability benefits in the Philippine currency equivalent
of US$60,000.00, plus ten percent (10%) attorney's fees amounting to
US$6,000.00. 14

The LA found that petitioner was able to establish that as Ordinary

Seaman, he was exposed to and came in direct contact with various injurious
and harmful chemicals on board the vessel, which contributed to his thyroid
cancer. In this regard, the LA opined that the law does not require a causal
relation but merely reasonable work connection for an illness to be
compensable. Further, the LA found that petitioner could no longer perform
the tasks and duties required by his position due to his illness and there being
no proof that he was able to land any gainful employment during the 240-day
period, petitioner is entitled to full disability compensation equivalent to
Grade 1 impediment under the 2010 POEA Standard Employment Contract
(SEC). Finally, as regards the third doctor provision of the POEA-SEC, the
LA pointed out that the records show that petitioner, through his
counsel/representative, sent a copy of the medical report of his physician of
choice on November 15, 2016 through electronic mail. Having been notified
of the contrary medical assessment, it was incumbent upon respondents to
initiate the process of appointing a third doctor. Thus, respondents' inaction
should work against them and they could no longer invoke the provision of
the POEA-SEC pertaining to non-referral to a third doctor. 15

11
Id. at 322.
12
Id. at 15 and 332-335.
13
Id. at 172-191. Penned by Labor Arbiter Norberto D. Enriquez.
14
Id. at 190-191.
15
Id. at 180-189.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 250203

However, anent the claim of sickness allowance, the same was denied
as the records show that it had already been paid by respondents. In a simila;·
vein, petitioner's prayer for moral and exemplary damages were likewise
denied due to his failure to prove entitlement thereto. 16

Aggrieved, respondents appealed to the NLRC.

The NLRC Ruling

In a Decision 17 dated June 28, 2017, the NLRC reversed and set aside
the LA ruling, and accordingly, ruled that petitioner is not entitled to
permanent and disability benefits. 18

Contrary to the LA' s findings, the NLRC ruled that petitioner failed to
substantiate his claim and prove that his illness is work-related in order to be
entitled to disability compensation. Petitioner's medical certificate issued by
his physician of choice did not establish any causal connection between his
work as Ordinary Seaman and his thyroid cancer. Relevantly, the NLRC
found that the examination and treatment given by the company-designated
physicians were more extensive than that of petitioner's physician of choice.
The NLRC also held that petitioner's exposure to radiation from the
communication facilities of the vessel, which emit electromagnetic radiation,
as well as his exposure to various harmful substances or chemicals, still could
not be deemed, for purposes of disability compensation, to have caused,
aggravated or contributed to the development of his thyroid cancer. 19

Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the same was denied in a

Resolution 20 dated August 31, 20 l 7. Thus, petitioner elevated the case to the
CA through a Rule 65 petition for certiorari.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision21 dated June 28, 2019, the CA found no grave abuse of

discretion on the part of the NLRC in ruling that petitioner is not entitled to
disability benefits. 22

The CA held that although petitioner's thyroid cancer is disputably

presumed to be work-related, respondents presented evidence to the contrary.

16 ld. at 189-190.
17 Id. at 155-167.
18
Id.atl66.
19
ld. at 160-166.
20 Jd. at 169-170.
21 Id. at 13-23.
22 Id. at 23.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 250203

In this regard, the CA pointed out that the company-designated physicians led
by Dr. Cruz found that petitioner's illness is not work-related. The extensive
medical attention spanning 169 days from March 15, 2016 up to August 31,
2016 that the company-designated physicians gave to petitioner enabled them
to acquire a more accurate diagnosis of his medical condition. Further, the CA
opined that even assuming that the thyroid cancer is work-related, petitioner
failed to prove that his working conditions on board M/V Jork Valiant caused
or aggravated his illness. 23

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied m a

Resolution24 dated October 24, 2019; hence, this petition.

The Issue

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly
ruled that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in holding that
petitioner was not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.

The Court's Ruling

The petition is partly meritorious.

At the outset, it bears emphasizing the distinct approach of the Court in

reviewing the appellate court's ruling in a labor case. In such an instance, the
Court is essentially called to rule whether or not the CA correctly determined
the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC ruling. 25
Relatedly, "[g]rave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in a
capricious and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack ofjurisdiction. To
be considered 'grave,' discretion must be exercised in a despotic manner by
reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be 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." 26 Thu~, "[i]n labor
cases, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when its
findings 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 applicable law and jurisprudence, then no grave abuse of
discretion exists and the CA should so declare and, accordingly, dismiss the
petition." 27

23
Id. at 18-22.
24
Id. at 25-26.
25
Pelagio v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 231773, March 11, 2019, 895 SCRA 546,
554-555, citing University of Santo Tomas (UST) v. Samahang Manggagawa ng UST, 809 Phil. 212,
219-220 (2017).
26
Paiton v. Armscor Global Defense, Inc., G.R. No. 255656, April 25, 2022, citing Jolo 's Kiddie Carts v.
Caba Ila, 821 Phil. 1101, 1109 (2017).
27 Id., citing Jolo 's Kiddie Carts v. Cabal/a, id. at 1109-1110.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 250203

Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the CA

erred in not ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when
the latter tribunal ruled that petitioner is not entitled to permanent and total
disability benefits, as will be explained hereunder.

In Pelagio v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (Pelagio ), 28 the

Court had the opportunity to reiterate the following guidelines that govern
seafarers' claims for permanent and total disability benefits:

1. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical

assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days
from the time the seafarer rep01ied to him;

2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment

within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable 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 sufficient justification (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 sufficient 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. 29 (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)

Thus, Pelagio instructs that "the company-designated physician is

required to issue a final and definite assessment of the seafarer's disability
rating within the aforesaid 120/240-day period; 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
[work-related] permanent and total disability, and thus, is entitled to the
benefits corresponding thereto." 30

In this case, the 17 medical reports issued by the company-designated

physician did not state whether petitioner was already fit to work or had been
assessed with a certain disability grading. A circumspect perusal of these
medical reports would show that what were stated therein were merely
findings of the examinations done per check-up, diagnosis, medications to
take, and the schedule of the next appointment. Specifically, in the Medical
Report dated July 29, 2016, 31 it was only stated that "[t]he diagnosed illness

28
Supra note 25.
29 · Id. at 556, citing Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Rapiz, 803 Phil. 266, 273 (2017).
30 Id. at 557; citations omitted.
31
Rollo, p. 320.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 250203

of papillary carcinoma of the thyroid is not work-related." In fact, in the latest

Medical Report dated September 23, 2016, 32 petitioner was required to
undergo a radioactive iodine treatment and to undergo further treatment after
radioactive iodine for a period of sixty (60) days. More importantly,
respondents discontinued the radioactive iodine treatment, thus, precluding
the company-designated physicians to issue a final and definite assessment
required by law.

Verily, the failure of the company-designated physicians to issue a final

and definite assessment within the prescribed periods gave rise to the
conclusive presumption that petitioner indeed sustained a work-related
permanent and total disability; thus, entitling him to benefits corresponding
thereto. In this regard, it bears reiterating that the issuance of a final and
definite disability assessment by the company-designated physician within the
prescribed periods is strictly necessary to determine the true extent of a
seafarer's sickness or injury and their capacity to resume work as such.
Without such assessment, the extent of a seafarer's sickness or injury remains
an open question and thus, prejudicial to claims for disability benefits. As
such, in line with the general policy of our laws to afford protection to labor,
failure to comply with this mandatory requirement renders the seafarer's
disability as total and permanent by operation of law. 33

In view of the foregoing disquisition which entitles petitioner to

permanent and total disability benefits, the Court shall no longer traverse the
other matters related to this issue.

However, as regards petitioner's claim for sickness allowance, the same

34
must be denied as it has been shown to have been paid by respondents. As
to the claim for moral and exemplary damages, it appears from the records
that these were not supported by any proof of bad faith or malice on
respondents' part, and hence, must also be denied. 35 With regard to his claim
of attorney's fees, however, the Comi finds that petitioner is entitled to
attorney's fees in the amount equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total
award, or its peso equivalent at the time of payment, in line with prevailing
jurisprudence. 36 This is because petitioner was forced to litigate and incur
expenses to protect his valid claim.

Finally, the Court deems it proper to impose on all monetary awards

due to petitioner legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum,

32 Id. at 322.
33 See Onia v. Leonis Navigation Co., Inc., G.R. No. 256878, February 14, 2022.
34 Rollo, pp. 332-335.
35 See BPI Family Bank v. Franco, 563 Phil. 495, 514-515 (2007).
36 Atienza v. Orophil Shipping International Co., Inc., 815 Phil. 480 (2017).
Decision 8 G.R. No. 250203

reckoned from finality of this Decision until full payment, in accordance with
prevailing jurisprudence. 37 ..

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The

Decision dated June 28, 2019 and the Resolution dated October 24, 2019 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 153375, which affirmed the Decision
dated June 28, 2017 and the Resolution dated August 31, 2017 of the National
Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC No. (OFW-M) 04-000308-17,
are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated January 12,
2017 of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC NCR Case No. OFW (M) 10-13058-16 is
REINSTATED with MODIFICATION, in that petitioner Warren A.
Reuyan is awarded total and permanent disability benefits amounting to the
Philippine currency equivalent of US$60,000.00, plus ten percent (10%)
attorney's fees amounting to US$6,000.00. The same shall earn legal interest
at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until
full payment.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

/
✓-/~/@~~ MAR~-V.F. LEONEN
Senior Associate Justice ,~
Division Chairperson ~

AM

JHOS~OPEZ
Associate Justice

37 Pelagio v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., supra, citing Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267
(2013).
Decision 9 G.R. No. 250203

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
Comi's Division.

MARVI
~~
.V.F. LEONEN
Senior Associate Justice '
Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify 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.
.