Cherry Jean O.

Romano The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari filed

Topic: Disability benefits by petitioners due to substantial defects in the pleading.

MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORP./AIR-SEA HOLIDAY Issue: Whether respondent’s injury entitles him to
GMBH STABLE ORGANIZATION ITALIA/MARLON R. disability benefits and attorney’s fees.
ROÑO, vs ELMER V ENANO
June 20, 2018 Ruling:
G.R. No. 224115 Considering that the Supreme Court is not the
trier of facts, and in order to avoid subverting justice,
Facts: the Court remanded the case back to the Court of
Elmer Enanor (respondent) filed an action Appeals to rule on the merits of the case.
against Magsaysay Maritime Corp., Air-Sea Holiday The difference between the decisions of the LA
GMBH Stable Organization Italia, and Marlon R. Rono and the NLRC are too substantial to be merely
(petitioners) for the recovery of disability benefits, disregarded on the ground of technicality. On one hand,
medical expenses and attorney’s fees. Enanor was the LA found that the respondent is already “fit to
employed by the petitioners as utility galley onboard work”, and is thus entitled to the payment of disability
the vessel, from his embarkation on August 30, 2013 benefits and medical expenses. As a result of this
until his repatriation back to the Philippines sometime finding, teh respondent was only awarded a mere
in January 2014. The respondent figured in an incident Php50,000.00. On the other hand, the NLRC determined
that occurred in the vessel’s kitchen the same month of that the respondent suffered an injury which would
his repatriation, and which resulted to a fracture of his entitle him to full disability benefits in the sum of
right ring finger. USD$60,000.00
The Labor Arbiter decided in favour of
petitioners. The LA found out that the respondent, after
continous therapy. Ahs already improved and by, June
23, 2014, he was “fit to work as per orthopaedic
standpoint as he can close his fist without difficulty and
his fingers are within the functional range”.
When the case was elevated to the NLRC, the
LA decision was reversed and set aside in favour of
respondent. The NLRC ruled that the injury suffered by
the respondent incapacitated him for more than 120
days from the time he was medically repatriated and
there were no report or traces that he was gainfully
employed as a seafarer as of the time of the filing of the
complaint before the LA.