QUITORIANO vs. JEBSENS MARITIME, INC. Facts: Petitioner was hired by Jebsens Maritime, Inc. (represented by Ma.

Theresa Gutay), on behalf of its foreign principal co-respondent Atle Jebsens Management A/S, hired2 on January 13, 2001 Rizaldy M. Quitoriano (petitioner) as 2nd Officer aboard the vessel M/V Trimnes for a period of six months with a basic monthly salary of US$936. On May 23, 2001, petitioner complained of dizziness with severe headache, "general body weakness, chest pains, easy fatigability," "weak grip strength," and "numbness on the left side of his body" and was observed to be "dragging his left foot," "his mouth slightly down to one side," and his speech "slurred." On May 26, 2001 petitioner was diagnosed in Port Huelva, Spain as suffering from "hypertension arterial" or "mild stroke and was repatriated to the Philippines on May 30, 2001 to undergo further medical examination and treatment. Upon arrival in Manila, petitioner underwent several tests at the Medical Center Manila. At that time, petitioner "still complain[ed] of chest pain and easy fatigability". Petitioner was diagnosed as suffering from hypertension and transient ischemic attack. On November 16, 2001 or 169 days after petitioners repatriation, the physician issued a medical report declaring him "fit to work". Petitioner later sought the opinion of an independent internist-cardiologist from the Philippine Heart Center, who diagnosed him as suffering from "hypertension cardiovascular disease and hyperlipidemia." Another physician of the same hospital also found him to have "cerebral infarction, R, basal ganglia area." Petitioner thereupon repeatedly asked respondents for full permanent disability compensation but was unsuccessful. He thus filed on February 26, 2002 a complaint to recover permanent total disability compensation of US$80,000, as provided for in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) forged with respondents, and attorneys fees before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Arbitration Office in Quezon City. The Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioners complaint based on the companydesignated physicians fit-to-work certification. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision with modification by ordering respondents to allow petitioner to resume sea duty. His Motion for Reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed a Certiorari to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the NLRC decision and also denied his Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners disability is considered permanent and total to entitle him to recover permanent total disability compensation of US$80,000, as provided for in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Decision: Yes. The Court held that petitioners disability being then permanent and total, he is "entitled to 100% compensation, i.e., US$80,000 for officers," as stipulated in par. 20.1.7 of the parties CBA. Ratio Decidendi: In accordance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and full protection to labor, the Court has applied the Labor Code concept of permanent total disability to Filipino seafarers,19 it holding that the notion of disability is intimately related to the workers capacity to earn, what is compensated being not his injury or illness but his inability to work resulting in the impairment of his earning capacity; hence, disability should be understood less on its medical significance but more on the loss of earning capacity. The standard employment contract for seafarers was formulated by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under E.O. No. 247 to "secure the 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." 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" (Art. 1700). A total disability does not require that the employee be absolutely disabled or totally paralyzed. What is necessary is that the injury must be such that the employee cannot pursue his usual work and earn therefrom (Austria v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146636, Aug. 12, 2002, 387 SCRA 216, 221). On the other hand, a total disability is considered permanent if it lasts continuously for more than 120 days. Thus, in the very recent case of Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad (G.R. No. 134028, December 17, 1999, 321 SCRA 268, 270-271), we held: Permanent disability is inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body. x x x. Applying the standards reflected in the immediately quoted ruling of the Court vis--vis the fact that it was only on November 16, 2001 that the "fit to work" certification was issued by physician or more than five months from the time petitioner was medically repatriated on May 30, 2001, petitioners disability is considered permanent and total.

REMIGIO v. NLRC, et al Facts: On November 27, 1997, petitioner Bernardo Remigio entered into a Contract of Employment with respondent C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. (respondent agency), for and in behalf of its foreign principal, co-respondent New Commodore Cruise Line, Ltd. (respondent principal). The contract provided that the terms and conditions of the standard employment contract governing the employment of all seafarers, approved per Department of Labor and Employment's Department Order No. 33 and the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration's Memorandum Circular No. 55, both Series of 1996 (1996 POEA SEC), were to be strictly and faithfully observed.6 Under the contract, petitioner was to work as Musician II on board SS "Enchanted Isle," a vessel owned and operated by respondent principal, for ten (10) months, at a basic monthly salary of US$857.00, overtime rate of US$257.00 per month and vacation leave with pay of three (3) days per month. After petitioner passed the pre-employment medical examination, he joined the vessel and started performing his job as a drummer in December 1997. On March 16, 1998, while the vessel was docked at the port of Cancun, Mexico, petitioner went ashore to attend to some personal matters. While walking, petitioner suddenly felt severe chest pain and shortness of breath. He returned to the vessel and experienced another such episode on the same evening. When his chest pain recurred the following day, he went to the vessel's infirmary where he again suffered from chest pain. Petitioner was brought and confined for seven (7) days at the Grand Cayman Island Hospital. His pain worsened upon physical exertion but improved with rest. Thus, he was instructed to refrain from performing any kind of physical activity and to have a complete bed rest. He rejoined the vessel on March 24, 1998. Upon the vessel's arrival at the port of New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., petitioner was brought to the West Jefferson Medical Center for a more thorough check-up and evaluation. A triple coronary artery bypass was performed on petitioner on April 2, 1998. On April 8, 1998, petitioner was transferred to the Marine Medical Unit for observation. After twelve (12) days of confinement, petitioner's cardiologist found him "not fit for sea duty" and recommended for him to be "[r]epatriated to home port for follow up with a cardiologist."9 He was repatriated to Manila on April 23, 1998 where he underwent medical check-up. On May 13, 1998, petitioner, through counsel, sent a formal communication11 to respondent agency demanding payment of unpaid wages, sickness allowance and permanent total disability benefits. The demand, however, was refused.

On November 12, 1998, petitioner filed the instant complaint13 for (a) recovery of permanent total disability benefits amounting to US$60,000.00; (b) actual and compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity in the amount of US$154,260.00; and (c) moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. On September 15, 1999, Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal by petitioner, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter in toto. Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was also denied. The CA likewise did not find substantial evidence to prove that the heart ailment incurred by petitioner during the term of his employment resulted to his disability, i.e., rendered him incapable of further seeking employment as a musician or to follow a substantially gainful occupation. The Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was also denied. Hence, this petition. Issue: 1. Whether heart ailment suffered during the term of the contract is compensable under the 1996 POEA SEC even if there is no proof of work-connection; and 2. Whether the concept of permanent total disability under the Labor Code applies to the case of a seafarer's claim for disability benefits under the 1996 POEA SEC. Decision and Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, petitioner based his claim for disability benefits under Section 20 in relation to Sections 30 and 30-A of the 1996 POEA SEC. While indeed, the Labor Code's provisions on disability benefits under the Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC) require the element of work-relation for an illness to be compensable, the 1996 POEA SEC giving a more liberal provision in favor of the seafarer must apply. As a rule, stipulations in an employment contract not contrary to statutes, public policy, public order or morals have the force of law between the contracting parties. In controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the formers favor. Yes, in several cases the Court has applied the Labor Code concept of permanent total disability to the case of seafarers. The Court ruled that in a 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. "Permanent disability is the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body."

AUSTRIA vs. CA, et al Facts: Petitioner Pablo A. Austria was employed as bag piler at Central Azucarera de Tarlac from June 1, 1977 to July 20, 1997. In 1994, petitioner began to feel severe back pain. On November 18, 1994, petitioner underwent an MRI which revealed a small disc protrusion at L4 and L5 level. Petitioner underwent Laminectomy on March 17, 1995 at the Ramos General Hospital in Tarlac, Tarlac. The x-ray photographs taken on May 23, 1997, September 3, 1998, and September 28, 1998 revealed osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine. On account of his osteoarthritis, petitioner filed with the SSS a claim for compensation benefits under PD 626 as amended. The claim was granted and petitioner was awarded permanent partial disability benefits for eight (8) months. Petitioner thereafter requested the SSS for conversion of his permanent partial disability benefit to permanent total disability benefit. The SSS denied the request arguing that there was no progression of the petitioners illness. On appeal, the ECC affirmed the decision of the SSS. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari. The appellate court dismissed the petition, ruling that the law does not allow the conversion of permanent partial disability to permanent total disability. Hence this petition. Issue: "Whether or not the CA erred in denying the claim for additional benefits in favor of the petitioner and not allowing the conversion of his (petitioner) permanent partial disability to permanent total disability." Decision: Yes. Under Section 2 Rule VII of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, a disability is total and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness, the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days; and a disability is partial and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness, the employee suffers a permanent partial loss of the use of any part of his body. As held in one decided case, the test of whether or not an employee suffers from permanent total disability is a showing of the capacity of the employee to continue performing his work notwithstanding the disability he incurred. Ratio Decidendi: Applying the foregoing standards, we find petitioner entitled to permanent total disability benefit under the law. Petitioner has been employed as bag piler for twenty (20) years at the Central Azucarera de Tarlac. Contrary to the assertion of

the Court of Appeals, there is nothing in the law12 that prohibits the conversion of permanent partial disability benefit to permanent total disability benefit if it is shown that the employees ailment qualifies as such. Furthermore, the grant of permanent total disability benefit to an employee who was initially compensated for permanent partial disability but is found to be suffering from permanent total disability would not be prejudicial to the government to give it reason to deny the claim. These rulings are consistent with the primary purpose of PD 626, that is, to provide meaningful protection to the working class against the hazards of disability, illness and other contingencies resulting in the loss of income, 14 as well as the Constitutional mandate to afford full protection to labor.15

PHILIMARE INC, et. al v. SUGANOB Facts: Respondent Benedicto F. Suganob was employed as Chief Cook for petitioners for almost ten years on board various vessels of petitioners. His last employment contract with petitioners was on board M/V Mekong Star where he was hired for a period of ten months starting September 2, 2001. Six days after he had boarded said ship, he experienced pains on his right shoulder. After undergoing consultation in Vietnam, he was medically repatriated. Upon his arrival in the Philippines, Suganob was immediately referred by the petitioners to the Peoples Diagnostic Center, Inc. where a series of examinations and diagnosis were performed on him. The medical report showed that he had right shoulder sprain, gouty arthritis, urinary tract infection and hypertension and that he was unfit to work until October 11, 2001. On October 29, 2001, Suganob was declared fit to work by the Peoples Diagnostic Center, Inc. provided he maintains his medications. However, on April 5, 2002, Suganobs physician declared that he cannot be cleared and is not fit to work because of his age and the recurrence of symptoms of illness. As Suganob was totally incapacitated, he sought his permanent disability compensation and other benefits from petitioners who refused his request. Hence, on April 25, 2002, Suganob filed a Complaint4 to recover sickness and permanent disability benefits. On October 30, 2002, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision5 in favor of Suganob. Petitioners interposed an appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter proceedings to determine the degree of impediment of complainant [Suganob] with the aid of either a private or public physician to be chosen or agreed upon by the parties. Suganod filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals which rendered decision in favor of Suganob reinstating and affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Hence, this petition. Issue: (1) Is Suganob entitled to disability benefits?; and (2) Is Suganob entitled to sickness allowance/wages? Decision: (1) Yes. Disability is intimately related to ones earning capacity. It should be understood less on its medical significance but more on the loss of earning capacity.20 To be entitled to Grade 1 disability benefits, the employees disability must not only be total but also permanent. (2) Yes. The Court ruled for Suganob relying on Section 20, par. B, sub-par. 3 of the POEA Standard

Employment Contract. Here, Suganob was unable to work for a period of more than 120 days. It is therefore correct that he be awarded his 120-day sickness wages as required by the POEA Standard Employment Contract. No doubt Suganob became sick in the course of his employment with petitioners because he was declared to be healthy prior to his departure. This is corroborated by the fact that he was subjected to thorough examination before boarding M/V Mekong Star. Had he not been found fit to work prior to his departure, he would not have been allowed to board said ship. Without a doubt, Suganob acquired his illness in the course of his employment with petitioners.

VICENTE v. ECC Facts: The petitioner, Domingo Vicente, was formerly employed as a nursing attendant at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center in Quezon City. On August 5, 1981, at the age of forty-five, and after having rendered more than twenty-five years of government service, he applied for optional retirement (effective August 16, 1981) under the provisions of Section 12(c) of Republic Act No. 1616, giving as reason therefor his inability to continue working as a result of his physical disability. 2 The petitioner likewise filed with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) an application for "income benefits claim for payment" under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 626, as amended. The petitioner's application for income benefits claim payment was granted but only for permanent partial disability (PPD) compensation or for a period of nineteen months starting from August 16, 1981 up to March 1983. On March 14, 1983, the petitioner requested the General Manager of the GSIS to reconsider the award given him and prayed that the same be extended beyond nineteen months invoking the findings of his attending physician. The petitioner was granted the equivalent of an additional four (4) months benefits. Still unsatisfied, the petitioner again sent a letter to the GSIS Disability Compensation Department Manager on November 6, 1986, insisting that he (petitioner) should be compensated no less than for "permanent total disability" which was later on denied. Petitioner sought reconsideration and as a result of which, his case was elevated to the respondent Employees Compensation Commission (ECC). October 1, 1987, the petitioner notified the respondent Commission that he was confined at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center for "CVA probably thrombosis of the left middle cerebral artery. Finally, on August 24, 1988, the respondent rendered a decision affirming the ruling of the GSIS Employees' Disability Compensation and dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Hence this petition. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits based on clinical evaluation and certification? Decision: Yes. Under the Labor Code, a disability is total and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days except as otherwise provided for in Rule X of these Rules.

In the case at bar, the petitioner's permanent total disability is established beyond doubt by several factors and circumstances. Noteworthy is the fact that from all available indications, it appears that the petitioner's application for optional retirement on the basis of his ailments had been approved. Further, the appropriate physicians of the petitioner's employer, the Veterans Memorial Medical Center, categorically certified that the petitioner was classified under permanent total disability. On this score, "the doctor's certification as to the nature of the claimant's disability may be given credence as he normally would not make a false certification." There being no showing, as we mentioned earlier, that the petitioner's disability is "temporary total" as defined by the law, the inescapable conclusion is that he suffers from permanent total disability.

CRYSTAL SHIPPING, INC v. NATIVIDAD Facts: Petitioner A/S Stein Line Bergen, through its local manning agent, petitioner Crystal Shipping, Inc., employed respondent Deo P. Natividad as Chief Mate of M/V Steinfighter for a period of ten months.2 Within the contract period, respondent complained of coughing and hoarseness and was brought to shore for examination. He was diagnosed with "swelling neck and lymphatic glands right side in neck", declared unfit for duty, and advised to see an ear-nose-throat specialist.3 He was repatriated to Manila on August 18, 1998. Shortly after his arrival, respondent was referred to ClinicoMed Inc., the company-designated clinic, for check-up and later thoroughly examined at the Manila Doctors Hospital. He was diagnosed with "papillary carcinoma, metastatic to lymphoid tissue consistent with thyroid primary" and "reactive hyperplasis, lymph node". On September 11, 1998, he underwent a total thyroidectomy with radial neck dissection. After the operation, respondent developed chest complications and pleural effusion, and had to undergo a thoracenthesis operation. On the basis of all these, his attending physician diagnosed him permanently disabled with a grade 9 impediment, with grade 1 as the most serious. A second opinion of a physician concurred that respondent was disabled with a grade 9 impediment. Respondent underwent several check-ups of which all expenses incurred in respondents examination and treatments were shouldered by the petitioners. On June 25, 1999, petitioners offered US$13,060 as disability benefits which respondent rejected. Respondent claimed that he deserves to be paid US$60,000 for a grade 1 impediment. Failing to reach an agreement, respondent filed, with the Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB), a complaint for disability benefits, illness allowance, damages and attorneys fees. The Labor Arbiter ruled for respondent. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially reversed the ruling of the RAB on the ground that findings of the company-designated doctors were binding, as stipulated in the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) Standard Employment Contract.8 However, upon respondents motion for reconsideration, citing jurisprudence that findings of company-designated doctors are self-serving, the NLRC affirmed the ruling of the RAB with respect only to the award of disability benefits. Petitioners seasonably filed a motion for extension of time to file their petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. On July 2, 2002, the appellate court denied the motion on the ground that pressure of work is not a compelling reason for the grant of an extension.

Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether respondent is entitled to proper disability benefits? Decision: In resolving the merits of the case, the Court find pertinent Section 30 of the POEA Memorandum Circular No. 55, Series of 1996,21 which provides the schedule of disability or impediment for injuries suffered and illness contracted. The particular illness of the respondent is not within those enumerated. But, the same provision supplies us with the guideline that any item in the schedule classified under grade 1 constitutes total and permanent disability. There is no question according to the Court that the respondents disability was total. Permanent disability is the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body.22 As gleaned from the records, respondent was unable to work from August 18, 1998 to February 22, 1999, at the least, or more than 120 days, due to his medical treatment. This clearly shows that his disability was permanent. Total disability, on the other hand, means the disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work of similar nature that he was trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainments could do.23 It does not mean absolute helplessness. In disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of ones earning capacity. The law does not require that the illness should be incurable. What is important is that he was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total disability.26 An award of a total and permanent disability benefit would be germane to the purpose of the benefit, which is to help the employee in making ends meet at the time when he is unable to work.