Paulino Ungos III

Lawyer | Law Professor | Author

Tag: permanent total disability

  • Regardless of the Cause of Repatriation

    Reynaldo entered into a three-month employment contract to work as an oiler with Maritime Management Services (Maritime Management), through its agent, Southeast Asia Shipping Corp. (SEASCORP). Before deployment, he underwent his pre-employment medical examination and was certified to be fit for sea duty. On January 30, 2010, Reynaldo boarded the M/V BP Pioneer.

    Reynaldo narrated that on March 29, 2010, he was carrying spare parts needed for his repair of the ship’s generators when the ship swayed due to big waves. This caused him to bend and nearly fall to his knees.

    Reynaldo claimed that he soon felt excruciating pain in his scrotal/inguinal area, including pain and numbness in his left leg to his foot. Despite this, he continued to carry the parts and repaired the generator until he was relieved by another oiler. After his duty, Reynaldo went to his cabin and took a pain reliever. He then went to the ship’s clinic to have himself checked by the doctor on board. In the Report of Illness by the ship’s doctor, the latter diagnosed Reynaldo to have epididymorchitis and advised him to rest until further observation since it may just be due to tiredness. The doctor also ruled out hernia and trauma.

    On May 19, 2010, Reynaldo visited the ship’s doctor and informed the latter that he still feels pain during prolonged standing or while walking, with numbness of his lower extremity. However, the doctor concluded that this was normal considering his age and just advised to take pain relievers.

    Upon the expiration of his contract on May 25, 2010, Reynaldo disembarked the vessel at the port of Takoradi, Ghana and was repatriated back to the Philippines. Believing that the pain in his scrotal/inguinal area was normal and, as the doctor had advised, Reynaldo took a complete rest for about a month.

    Eventually, SEASCORP called him for possible deployment. He was sent to Merita Diagnostic Clinic (Merita), the company-accredited clinic, for his pre-employment medical examination.

    During his examination, Reynaldo informed the doctor about the injury sustained while on board the M/V BP Pioneer. Thus, the doctor asked him to get an x-ray of his scrotal/inguinal area and lumbar spine.

    On July 30, 2010, Reynaldo also underwent Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the Lumbo-Sacral Spine. It was found that Reynaldo had spondylolisthesis, among others.

    On August 26, 2010, Reynaldo consulted two doctors who advised him to have surgery for his spondylolisthesis. Reynaldo found the procedure costly.

    Reynaldo approached SEASCORP to request for financial assistance. However, his request was denied.

    Reynaldo thus filed a complaint against his employer before the National Labor Relations Commission and claimed for permanent total disability benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

    The Office of the Labor Arbiter found that Reynaldo suffered an injury while performing his duties as an oiler. Being a work-related injury, it held that it must be compensable.

    On the other hand, the said Office found that the mandatory three-day reporting requirement for a post-employment examination under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA SEC) did not apply in the case of Reynaldo because he was repatriated not because of a medical condition but due to the expiration of his contract.

    The Office of the Labor Arbiter thus ruled in favor of Reynaldo and required the employer to pay Reynaldo his permanent total disability compensation plus attorney’s fees.

    The National Labor Relations Commission reversed and set aside the Decision of the Office of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed Reynaldo’s complaint for lack of merit.

    According to the Commission, the injury suffered by Reynaldo that was reflected on record was the discomfort on his scrotal and inguinal area. His assertion that he suffered an injury while on board and felt pain on his left leg to his foot was unsupported by evidence.

    The Commission added that a seafarer who claims to be medically infirm must be examined by the company-designated physician within three days from repatriation. The failure of Reynaldo to report within the mandatory period without justifiable cause resulted in the forfeiture of his right to claim compensation and disability benefits under the POEA-SEC.

    The Court of Appeals denied Reynaldo’s petition in view of his failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement under the POEA-SEC. Such failure resulted in the forfeiture of his right to claim compensation and benefits.

    Reynaldo elevated his case to the Supreme Court.

    Was Reynaldo entitled to permanent total disability benefits?

    The Supreme Court ruled in the negative.

    The Court reiterated settled jurisprudence that in order to claim compensability under the POEA-SEC, it is required that the seafarer must have:

    • suffered a work-related illness or injury during the term of his contract; and
    • submitted himself to a mandatory post-employment medical examination within three (3) working days upon his arrival.

    The purpose of the three-day mandatory reporting requirement is to enable the company-designated physician to ascertain if the seafarer’s injury or illness is work-related. After that period, there would be difficulty in ascertaining the real cause of the illness. To ignore the rule would set a precedent with negative repercussions because it would open the floodgates to a limitless number of seafarers claiming disability benefits. It would certainly be unfair to the employer who would have difficulty determining the cause of a claimant’s illness considering the passage of time. In such a case, the employers would have no protection against unrelated disability claims.

    In the present case, the Court found that Reynaldo was repatriated due to the expiration of his contract. The Court stated that regardless of the cause of his repatriation, he was required to submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by the company-designated physician within three working days upon his return in order to ascertain if he was really suffering from a work-related injury or illness. Reynaldo may only be excused from such requirement if he was physically incapacitated to do so. The Court stressed that this was not Reynaldo’s situation.

    The Court equally found that Reynaldo complained of pain in the scrotal/inguinal area while on board which is why the initial diagnosis by the ship doctor was epididymorchitis.

    On the other hand, the Court noted that aside from his bare assertion, Reynaldo proffered no evidence establishing that he felt pain or numbness on his lower extremities while on board or that the ship doctor concluded that he contracted spondylolisthesis. According to the Court, it was only in July 2010, or after his repatriation, that the said findings were made by a doctor, which was well-beyond the three-day mandatory reporting period.

    The Court stated that while it commiserated with Reynaldo’s plight, non-compliance with the requirements set forth in the POEA-SEC had rendered it difficult to ascertain if his injury or illness was work-related.

    The Court accordingly denied Reynaldo’s claim for permanent total disability benefits.

    Further reading:

    • Cabatan v. Southeast Asia Shipping Corp., G.R. No. 219495, February 28, 2022.

  • A Verbal Notice of the Seafarer’s Disability Rating Is Not Enough

    Gregorio was engaged under a 10-month employment contract by Panstar Shipping Co., Ltd. (Panstar), through its agent Abosta Shipmanagement Corporation (Abosta) to work as an oiler on board the M/V Sino Trader. He was deployed on March 20, 2016.

    On June 23, 2016, Gregorio and several crewmates were ordered to carry ship supplies and food provisions. While carrying a sack of rice, Gregorio claimed to have felt a sudden snap on his left lower back with a sharp pain radiating down to his thigh/leg. He immediately reported the incident to his superiors, and he was given pain relievers and a waist protector. Since his condition did not improve, he was brought to a medical center in Singapore where he was diagnosed with “Lumbar spondylosis with discopathy at L4-L5, L5-S1” and also prescribed medication. He was again brought to a hospital in Brazil because of persistent pain. On August 6, 2016, he was repatriated to the Philippines for further medical treatment.

    Upon arrival, Gregorio immediately reported to the company-designated physician on August 8, 2016. After running a series of laboratory tests on Gregorio, the company-designated physician diagnosed him with “Herniated Nucleus Pulposus L3-L4, Disc Protrusion L5-S1 and L-4 Radiculopathy,” and recommended that he undergo physical therapy. Gregorio claimed, however, that the employer ceased his treatment and rehabilitation on February 16, 2017.

    During a conference held on February 20, 2017, the employer informed Gregorio that he suffered from Grade 8 disability and offered him the corresponding disability benefits in the amount of US$16,795.00. Gregorio requested for further treatment or an improved monetary offer, but his requests were denied.

    On April 25, 2017, Gregorio consulted his personal doctor, an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed him with “Disc Protrusion L5-S1 & Radiculopathy” and declared him permanently unfit for sea duty in any capacity.

    Gregorio instituted a complaint for payment of total and permanent disability benefits against the employer. According to Gregorio, the company-designated physician failed to timely issue a final medical assessment. He emphasized that the employer was not able to present any final medical assessment even during the mandatory conferences before the Office of the Labor Arbiter.

    The employer contended that based on an alleged November 22, 2016 Medical Assessment issued by the company-designated physician, Gregorio only suffered from a Grade 8 disability. The employer posited that said November 22, 2016 Medical Assessment should prevail. Said employer also stressed that Gregorio failed to provide a copy of the medical assessment of his personal doctor of choice prior to his filing of complaint.

    In the meantime, the parties agreed to refer the conflicting medical findings to a third doctor. The appointed third doctor recommended Gregorio to undergo a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan and Electromyography (EMG) test. Despite the release of the MRI scan and EMG test results, the medical assessment of the third doctor was not secured. Gregorio claimed that the non-completion of the conflict-resolution procedure was due to the fault of the employer, which the latter denied.

    Is Gregorio entitled to total and permanent disability benefits?

    The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.

    The Court stated that claims for disability benefits for injuries suffered by seafarers on board or during the term of their employment contract are governed by the provisions of Section 20 (A) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract1SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS. — A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows: 1. The employer shall continue to pay the seafarer his wages during the time he is on board the vessel. 2. If the injury or illness requires medical and/or dental treatment in a foreign port, the employer shall be liable for the full cost of such medical, serious dental, surgical and hospital treatment as well as board and lodging until the seafarer is declared fit to work or to be repatriated. However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the employer until such time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the company-designated physician. 3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days. For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits. If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties. xxx xxx xxx in that the seafarer has the obligation to report to the company-designated physician within three days from his repatriation, while the company-designated physician has the corresponding obligation to issue a final assessment of the seafarer’s disability within the periods mandated by law. The Court clarified that it is, however, not enough for the company-designated physician to issue a medical assessment within 120 or 240 days from the seafarer’s repatriation. In order to be binding, the medical assessment must be final, definite, and conclusive, otherwise, the law will step in and consider the seafarer totally and permanently disabled. Jurisprudence2Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Mirasol, G.R. No. 213874, June 19, 2019. has described a final, conclusive and definite medical assessment as that which must clearly state whether the seafarer is fit to work or the exact disability rating, or whether such illness is work-related, and without any further condition or treatment. It should no longer require any further action on the part of the company-designated physician and it is issued by the company-designated physician after he or she has exhausted all possible treatment options within the periods allowed by law. Jurisprudence3Gere v. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management Phils., Inc., G.R. Nos. 226656 & 226713, April 23, 2018. also teaches that apart from issuing a final, conclusive, and definite medical assessment, the company-designated physician and/or the company must also furnish the seafarer a copy thereof. To require the seafarer to seek the decision of a neutral third-party physician without primarily being informed of the assessment of the company-designated physician is a clear violation of the tenets of due process and is not countenanced.

    In the present case, the Court found that the company-designated physician failed to furnish Gregorio with a copy of the November 22, 2016 Medical Assessment within the periods mandated by law. The Court also found that Gregorio was informed of his Grade 8 disability rating only during the conference held on February 20, 2017 before the Office of the Labor Arbiter.

    The Court stressed that a verbal notice of the seafarer’s disability rating is not enough. The reason for furnishing the seafarer with a copy of the final medical assessment is to afford the seafarer the opportunity to evaluate the same and decide whether he agrees with it or not. Should the seafarer disagree with it, he ought to bring the same to an independent doctor who can only get a better understanding of the opinion of the company-designated physician through a copy of the latter’s medical assessment.

    In the present case, the Court stated that Gregorio cannot be expected to make an informed decision on the medical assessment of the company-designated physician based on a mere verbal declaration of his purported disability. Said the Court: Insofar as he is concerned, no final medical assessment was issued by the company-designated physician to contest. As such, Gregorio need not seek the opinion of an independent physician, more so refer the matter to a third doctor. Without proper notice of the November 22, 2016 Medical Assessment to Gregorio, he was already deemed totally and permanently disabled by operation of law, and therefore entitled to the corresponding disability benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract. The medical assessment of Gregorio’s personal doctor, as well as the absence of a medical assessment from a third doctor became immaterial.

    The Court added that the November 22, 2016 Medical Assessment, as an attachment to respondents’ Position Paper, was furnished Gregorio on September 8, 2017, or 396 days from his repatriation. For the Court, the final medical assessment of the company-designated physician was clearly not furnished to Gregorio within the 120 or 240-day periods mandated by law.

    The Court ordered the employer to pay total and permanent disability benefits to Gregorio.

    Further reading:

    • Abella v. Abosta Shipmanagement Corp., G.R. No. 249358, April 28, 2021.

  • The Seafarer Received His Medical Report When the Parties Filed Their Position Papers

    On March 13, 2013, Leobert signed a 10-month contract as an Assistant Cook with Holland America Line Westours, Inc. (Holland America) through its agent, United Philippine Lines, Inc. (UPL). Leobert boarded the “MS Zuiderdam” on March 27, 2013.

    Leobert claimed that while performing his duties as an Assistant Cook, he experienced severe pain in his left shoulder, prompting him to notify his superior. He was advised to go to the infirmary, where the ship doctor prescribed pain relievers and advised him to rest for a few days. Leobert then requested an offshore consultation, but Holland America chose medical repatriation. Leobert was medically repatriated and arrived in the Philippines on April 10, 2013.

    Leobert reported to UPL for his post-disembarkation medical check-up on April 10, 2013, and was referred to Shiphealth, Inc., (Shiphealth) where he was advised to undergo physical therapy sessions. He was referred to the University Physicians Medical Center, Inc. after his condition did not improve, and he underwent medical tests. He then returned to Shiphealth and was instructed to obtain his medical records from UPL. He was told verbally that he was fit to work, but he was unable to obtain any documentation of his medical evaluation from UPL.

    From September 10, 2013 to October 8, 2013, Leobert sought medical advice from Seamen’s Hospital, where it was recommended that he undergo arthroscopic surgery. He also spoke with Dr. Cesar H. Garcia, an orthopedist who specializes in bone and joint diseases, who determined that Leobert was unfit to work as a seaman due to his shoulder injury. Leobert claimed that he was forced to seek medical help from independent doctors because Shiphealth and UPL refused to provide him with his medical records, and that he sought medical help from other doctors on his own initiative.

    On September 11, 2013, Leobert filed a complaint against Holland America and UPL, believing he was entitled to permanent total disability benefits.

    According to Holland America and UPL, Leobert was diagnosed with “Grade 10 — ankylosis of the shoulder joint not permitting arm to be raised above a level with a shoulder and/or irreducible fracture or faulty union collar bone” on June 14, 2013. However, Holland America and UPL claimed that Leobert was only entitled to US$12,090.00.

    Holland America and UPL also claimed that because Leobert failed to demonstrate that the company-designated physician’s assessment was tainted with bias, malice, or bad faith, and he failed to comply with the procedure under Section 20 (A) (3) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract for challenging the company-designated physician’s assessment, he was only entitled to the benefits resulting from the company-designated physician’s findings.

    Was Leobert entitled to permanent total disability benefits?

    The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.

    The Court noted that Holland America and UPL did not deny that Leobert’s injuries were work-related, but instead argued that Leobert was only entitled to disability benefits under Grade 10. Because Leobert failed to initiate the process to have the conflicting assessments of the company-designated physician and his own doctor referred to a third doctor, Holland America and UPL argued that the company-designated physician’s assessment is valid and should be relied on instead of the seafarer’s own doctor.

    While the Court recognized the conflict resolution procedure prescribed in Section 20 (A) (3) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, it clarified that a seafarer’s failure to follow such procedure is only taken against him if it is first demonstrated that the seafarer was notified of the company-designated physician’s assessment. According to the Court, only after the seafarer has been duly and properly informed of the medical assessment can he decide whether or not he agrees with it. If he does not agree, he can begin the process of referring the assessment to his personal physician, after which the conflicting assessments are referred to a third doctor.

    The Court stressed its ruling in Gere v. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management Phils., Inc.1G.R. Nos. 226656 & 226713, April 23, 2018. in that the company-designated physician is mandated to issue a medical certificate, which should be personally received by the seafarer, or, if not practicable, sent to him/her by any other means sanctioned by present rules. Proper notice is one of the cornerstones of due process, the Court said, and the seafarer must be accorded the same especially so in cases where his/her well-being is at stake. If the seafarer is not notified of the evaluation of the company-designated physician after the lapse of the 120 or 240 day period from the date the seafarer first reported to the said physician, the Court states that by operation of law, the seafarer is deemed entitled to permanent total disability benefits.

    In the present case, the Court determined that Leobert was only shown the assessment of his impediment after Holland America and UPL had filed their position paper. Since the final and valid assessment of Leobert’s condition was not issued within the 120 or 240-day period, the Court ruled that Leobert was legally entitled to permanent total disability benefits.

    Further reading:

    • United Philippine Lines, Inc. v. Ramos, G.R. No. 225171, March 18, 2021.

  • Consequences of Deliberate Concealment

    Magno alleged that on November 13, 2014, he was hired by Goodwood Ship Management, Pte., Ltd., through its agent, Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc., as Oiler on board MT G.C. Fuzhou for a period of nine months. He stated that after he was declared fit for sea duty in his pre-employment medical examination, he boarded the vessel on November 15, 2014.

    Magno narrated that on January 25, 2015, he suddenly felt severe chest pain, accompanied by dizziness and weakness while carrying out his duties. He was made to endure his condition until his repatriation on May 18, 2015. Upon arrival in the Philippines, he was referred to the employer-company’s designated physician. From May 20, 2015, he was subjected to various tests and treatment for coronary artery disease. After five months of treatment, the company-designated physician discontinued his treatment. Consequently, he consulted his personal cardiologist, who concluded that the nature and extent of his illness rendered him permanently and totally unfit to work as a seaman. Thus, on January 19, 2016, he filed a complaint for disability benefits, medical expenses, damages and attorney’s fees against his employer.

    For its part, the employer retorted that Magno denied having a history of high blood pressure or any kind of heart disease when he ticked the “No” box opposite “High Blood Pressure” and “Heart Disease Vascular/Chest Pain” under the section, Medical History in his Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME). The employer stated that it was on May 17, 2015, that Magno complained of back and chest pains, with difficulty of breathing and easy fatigability, and was thereafter medically repatriated. During his treatment by the company-designated physician sometime in September 2015, Magno disclosed that he was diagnosed, as early as 2009, with coronary artery disease, for which he underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of the left anterior descending artery. The company-designated physicians later stopped his treatment, prompting him to file a complaint for the payment of permanent total disability benefits.

    The Office of the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Magno and awarded him permanent total disability benefits. Said Office considered the company-designated physician’s continuation of Magno’s treatment despite his belated disclosure of his existing coronary artery disease as an instance of employer’s waiver of its right to deny liability for disability benefits. According to the Office of the Labor Arbiter, such treatment constituted an implied admission of compensability and work-relatedness of Magno’s lingering cardio-vascular illness. The Office of the Labor Arbiter further found that the company-designated physician failed to issue a final assessment of Magno’s illness or fitness to work, which failure deemed Magno totally and permanently disabled.

    On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the Office of the Labor Arbiter’s ruling because Magno’s illness occurred within the duration of his contract, and his treatment lasted for more than 120 days. For the Commission, the award of permanent total disability benefits was justified.

    The employer then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition.

    Thus, the employer sought recourse before the Supreme Court, alleging that the Court of Appeals committed serious errors of law in upholding the Commission’s Decision. The employer insisted that Magno was not entitled to permanent and total disability benefits and his other monetary claims because of deliberate concealment of his coronary artery disease.

    For his part, Magno maintained entitlement to permanent total disability benefits since his illness was work-related and had contributed to the development of his condition that resulted in his disability.

    Is Magno entitled to permanent total disability benefits?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Magno is not entitled to permanent total disability benefits. The Court of Appeals erred in upholding the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission.

    The Court started by stating that entitlement of seafarers on overseas work to disability benefits is a matter governed, not only by medical findings, but by law and by contract. The Court stated that the material statutory provisions are Articles 197 to 199 of the Labor Code of the Philippines in relation to Section 2 (a), Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation. By contract, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, if any, and the employment agreement between the seafarer and the employer are pertinent.

    The Court pointed out that Section 20, paragraph E of the POEA-SEC clearly provides that “[a] seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness or condition in the Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) shall be liable for misrepresentation and shall be disqualified from any compensation and benefits.” The Court said that such rule seeks to penalize seafarers who conceal information to pass the pre-employment medical examination. It even makes such concealment a just cause for termination.

    Under the POEA-SEC, there is a “pre-existing illness or condition” if prior to the processing of the POEA contract, any of the following is present:

    • the advice of a medical doctor on treatment was given for such continuing illness or condition; or
    • the seafarer has been diagnosed and has knowledge of such illness or condition but failed to disclose it during the pre-employment medical examination, and such cannot be diagnosed during such examination.

    In the present case the Court found that:

    • In his September 18, 2014 PEME, Magno indicated that he was not suffering from any medical condition likely to be aggravated by service at sea or which may render him unfit for sea service;
    • Magno also indicated in the PEME that he did not have a history of heart disease/vascular/chest pain, high blood pressure, or that he underwent treatment for any ailment and was taking any medication; and
    • He signed the PEME certificate acknowledging that he had read and understood and was informed of the contents of such certificate.

    However, the Court further found a medical report issued by the company-designated physician, dated September 17, 2015, which stated therein Magno’s disclosure of a history of coronary artery disease for which he underwent percutaneous coronary intervention of the left anterior descending artery in 2009.

    With this disclosure, the Court declared that Magno had obscured his pre-existing cardiac ailment, and such concealment thus disqualified him from disability benefits notwithstanding the medical attention extended by the company-designated physician upon his repatriation.

    The Court discussed that even if the misrepresentation was discovered during Magno’s treatment with the company-designated physician, the same was immaterial and could not have canceled out his deception.

    The Court reiterated that a PEME is generally not exploratory in nature, nor is it a totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant’s medical condition. It does not reveal the real state of health of an applicant, and does not allow the employer to discover any and all pre-existing medical condition with which the seafarer is suffering and for which he may be taking medication. The PEME is nothing more than a summary examination of the seafarer’s physiological condition and is just enough for the employer to determine his fitness for the nature of the work for which he is to be employed.

    Since the PEME is not exploratory, the Court emphasized that its failure to reveal or uncover Magno’s ailments cannot shield him from the consequences of his deliberate concealment. In this regard, the “fit to work” declaration in the PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment.

    For knowingly concealing his history of coronary artery disease during the PEME, Magno committed fraudulent misrepresentation which unconditionally barred his right to receive any disability compensation from his employer.

    The Court added that even if it were to disregard Magno’s fraudulent misrepresentation, his claim would still fail.

    Coronary artery disease, which is subsumed under cardio-vascular disease, and hypertension are listed as occupational diseases under item 11, Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC.

    However, before such disease to be compensable, a seafarer must establish concurrence of the following conditions enumerated in the first paragraph of Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC:

    • The seafarer’s work must involve the risk described therein;
    • The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer’s exposure to the described risks;
    • The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; and
    • There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.

    Relevant thereto, the Court reiterated prevailing jurisprudence in that the table of illnesses and the corresponding nature of employment in Section 32-A only provides the list of occupational illnesses. However, even if the illness may be considered as work-related for having been specified in the table, the seafarer is still not exempted from providing proof of the conditions under the first paragraph of Section 32-A in order for the occupational illnesses complained of to be considered as compensable. Whoever claims entitlement to benefits provided by law should establish his right thereto by substantial evidence which is more than a mere scintilla; it is real and substantial, and not merely apparent. Further, while in compensation proceedings in particular, the test of proof is merely probability and not ultimate degree of certainty, the conclusion of the courts must still be based on real evidence and not just inference and speculations.

    In the present case, the Court found that Magno failed to present sufficient evidence to show how his working conditions contributed to or aggravated his illness. According to the Court, the general statements in his Position Paper were not validated by any written document or other proof. Neither was any expert medical opinion presented regarding the cause of his condition.

    The Court expounded that although Magno suffered from coronary artery disease, a cardiovascular illness under item 11 of Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, the conditions for compensability under the same section were not present since Magno did not present any proof of the required conditions to demonstrate that his illness is work-related and, therefore, compensable. Specifically, Magno failed to discharge his burden to prove the risks involved in his work, that his illness was contracted as a result of his exposure to the risks within the period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it, and that he was not notoriously negligent. The Court thus ruled that Magno was not entitled to permanent total disability benefits.

    In deciding against the seafarer in this case, the Court emphasized that the constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to oppress employers, as justice is for the deserving and must be dispensed within the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence. The Court said that its commitment to the cause of labor is not a lopsided undertaking. The Court concluded by stating that such commitment cannot and does not prevent it from sustaining the employer when it is in the right.

    Further reading:

    • Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc. v. Utanes, G.R. No. 236498, September 16, 2020.

    Subscribe to YouTube and Spotify

  • PTSD and Claims for Disability Benefits

    On 30 October 2013, the seafarer entered into a 7-month employment contract with Anglo-Eastern (ANTWERP), NV, through its agent, Anglo-Eastern Crew Management Philippines (Anglo-Eastern Crew), Inc., to work as a Messman aboard the M/V Mineral Water. On 23 February 2014, the seafarer boarded the vessel.

    The seafarer claimed that sometime in June 2014, he was sexually harassed by the chief officer of the vessel during the course of his employment. He also claimed that the chief officer also threatened to kill him upon learning that he filed a complaint against the latter before the ship captain. After the incident, the seafarer opted for voluntary repatriation and was able to return to the Philippines on 12 July 2014.

    On 24 November 2014 the seafarer consulted his personal doctor, a clinical psychologist, who diagnosed him with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The diagnosis of this doctor was verified by another doctor, who concluded that the seafarer cannot return to his job as a seafarer.

    Due to his illness, the seafarer requested for compensation from Anglo-Eastern Crew. However, his request remained unheeded.

    On 2 March 2015, the seafarer filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, sexual harassment and maltreatment. In addition, he prayed for the payment of disability benefits, damages and attorney’s fees since he claims to have been rendered permanently and totally disabled due to his post-traumatic stress disorder from his unfortunate experience onboard the vessel.

    The Office of the Labor Arbiter awarded the salaries of the seafarer for the unexpired portion of his employment contract because of the finding that the seafarer was forced to repatriate himself due to the hostile environment brought about by the filing of the complaint. The Office of the Labor Arbiter also awarded him moral damages for the mental torture that he endured and exemplary damages to dissuade such incident from further occurring. It also granted the claim for attorney’s fees since the seafarer was constrained to avail the services of a lawyer.

    When the case reached the Supreme Court, the seafarer insisted on his entitlement to disability benefits. However, the Court denied his claim for said benefits. The Court ruled:

    To support his claim for disability benefits, petitioner presented a psychiatric report and a medical certificate. These documents only prove that he was diagnosed with PTSD, prescribed to take medication, and recommended for psychotherapy sessions. However, there was no disability grading.

    The medical certificate states that “[a]t this point in time he cannot return to his work as a seafarer.” This statement is not sufficient for this court to conclude that petitioner is permanently and totally disabled to work as a seafarer. It does not instruct us how petitioner’s PTSD is work-related or work-aggravated. It also does not tell us whether petitioner underwent psychotherapy sessions, as recommended by his physicians. Assuming that petitioner underwent psychotherapy sessions and took his prescribed medication, no evidence was presented showing how he responded to treatment.

    It is established that petitioner suffered some form of injury, but the pieces of evidence he submitted are not sufficient to convince this Court that he has been rendered permanently and totally disabled. Thus, this Court is precluded from awarding disability benefits, not because of his non-compliance with the 3-day reportorial requirement, but because there is barely any evidence to support the claim for disability benefits.

    Further reading:

    • Toliongco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 231748, July 8, 2020.

  • Guarded Prognosis

    In one case, the Supreme Court reiterated the following rules relating to seafarer claims of total and permanent disability benefits:

    • 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 reported to him;
    • If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the said period of 120 days without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total;
    • If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the said 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 for another 120 days (or up to 240 days from the time the seafarer reported to him). The employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and
    • If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the said extended period, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.

    With regard to the company-designated physician’s medical assessment, the Court set forth the following requirements for determining the seafarer’s condition:

    • The assessment must be issued within the 120/240-day window; and
    • It must be final and definitive.

    In the present case, the Supreme Court found that the company-designated physician’s medical report was issued within the 240-day period. However, the Court ruled that the said report was not final and definitive.

    According to the Court, a final and definitive disability assessment is necessary in order to truly reflect the extent of the sickness or injuries to the seafarer and his or her capacity to resume work as such. To be conclusive, the medical assessments or reports:

    • must be complete and definite to give the proper disability benefits to seafarers
    • must also be supported with sufficient bases.

    The Court found that the company-designated physician’s medical report merely states that

    • the seafarer’s “prognosis for returning to sea duties is guarded” and
    • “if patient is entitled to disability, his suggested disability grading is Grade 10 — loss of grasping power for large objects.”

    The Court added that the report was notably bereft of any statement or explanation as to how the company-designated physician arrived with her medical conclusion. The report also did not even contain a definite statement as to the seafarer’s fitness to return to sea duties as it states that his prognosis of returning to his sea duties is still guarded.

    Furthermore, the company-designated physician failed to explain in detail the progress of the seafarer’s treatment and the approximate period needed for him to fully recover. Said physician merely adopted the findings or observations of the Orthopedics and Spine Surgery specialist.

    Thus, the Court ruled that the company-designated physician’s medical assessment was not final and definitive. The seafarer’s disability is deemed permanent and total by operation of law. The seafarer was awarded $110,000.00 under the CBA.

    Further reading:

    • Wilhelmsen-Smithbell Manning, Inc. v. Aleman, G.R. No. 239740 (Notice), January 8, 2020.

  • A Seafarer’s Cause of Action Arises Upon His Disembarkation from the Vessel

    On 4 February 2010, Khalifa Algosaibi, through its agent, 88 Aces, hired Apolinario as an ordinary seaman to board the vessel MV Algosaibi 42. His employment contract was for a duration of 6 months.

    After passing the required pre-employment medical examination, Apolinario left Manila on 26 February 2010 and embarked MV Algosaibi 42 in Ras Tanura, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    After completing his contract in August 2010, Apolinario was not repatriated to the Philippines, for he directly entered into a new employment contract with 88 Aces’ foreign principal, Khalifa Algosaibi. This new contract with Khalifa Algosaibi lasted until April 2012.

    While on board MV Algosaibi 42 in December 2010, Apolinario suddenly experienced dizziness. As his condition did not improve, he was sent to As Salama Hospital in Al-Khobar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where he was found to have high glucose and cholesterol. Apolinario notes that he was given medicine by the doctor and was advised to observe proper diet and avoid stress. After taking the doctor’s advice, his medical condition improved and he was able to perform his work well.

    However, after 2 years, particularly in January 2012, Apolinario alleged that his dizziness recurred, accompanied by the blurring of his vision. On 2 April 2012, he stated that he returned to As Salama Hospital where he was diagnosed to have diabetes mellitus and dislipedemia.

    In 11 April 2012, Apolinario was repatriated in Manila.

    Apolinario claims that he immediately reported to the office of 88 Aces to get his unpaid wages and for him to be referred to the company physician. However, 88 Aces viewed that his repatriation happened because he completed his 6-month Philippine Overseas Employment Administration standard employment contract. Thus it declined to shoulder his medical expenses. Apolinario no longer insisted on treatment and just continued taking the medicine given by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia doctor.

    Although Apolinario felt well, his illness recurred on 2 August 2013. Apolinario then consulted Dr. Joseph Glenn Dimatatac, an internal medicine physician, who informed him that his illness was indeed diabetes mellitus.

    On 17 March 2015, Apolinario consulted Dr. Rufo Luna, the Municipal Health Officer of the Municipality of San Jose, who declared him to be physically unfit to continue work due to his hyperglycemia. Consequently, Apolinario demanded, albeit unsuccessfully, the payment of his disability benefits from his employer.

    Apolinario filed his Request for Single Entry Approach at the National Labor Relations Commission on 25 March 2015. Then, on 8 May 2015, he filed a Complaint against Khalifa Algosaibi, 88 Aces, and Jocson (Respondents) before the Office of the Labor Arbiter for the payment of disability benefits.

    Respondents, on the other hand, denied liability for the following reasons:

    • Apolinario filed his Complaint 5 years after the completion of his employment contract in August 2010. Thus, his cause of action had already prescribed, not having been filed within the 3-year prescriptive period set by law.
    • Apolinario finished his 6-month employment contract in August 2010 without any medical issue whatsoever.
    • Apolinario actually failed to comply with the 3-day post-employment medical examination requirement.

    RULING:

    RE: Prescription

    Under the standard employment contract of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, a contract between an employer and a seafarer ceases upon its completion, when the seafarer signs off from the vessel and arrives at the point of hire.1Section 2, Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2010 (Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships [October 26, 2010])

    In this case, while Apolinario’s 6-month contract may have ended as early as August 2010, he nonetheless was able to sign off from MV Algosaibi 42 and arrive at the point of hire only on 11 April 2012.

    (Significance: A seafarer’s cause of action arises upon his disembarkation from the vessel.)

    As Apolinario’s disembarkation from the Algosaibi 42 was on 11 April 2012, he had three years from the date, or until April 11, 2015, to make a claim for disability benefits.

    Apolinario had requested for a Single Entry Approach2The Single Entry Approach is an administrative approach to provide an accessible, speedy, and inexpensive settlement of complaints arising from employer-employee relationship to prevent cases from ripening into full blown disputes. All labor and employment disputes undergo this 30-day mandatory conciliation-mediation process. before the National Labor Relations Commission as early as 25 March 2015.

    The fact that Apolinario filed his Complaint before the Office of the Labor Arbiter only on 8 May 2015 is of no moment. Since the Single Entry Approach is a pre-requisite to the filing of a Complaint before the Office of the Labor Arbiter, the date when Apolinario should be deemed to have instituted his claim was when he instituted his Request for Single Entry Approach on 25 March 2015. Considering that the expiration of Apolinario’s cause of action was on 11 April 2015, his claim was filed well within the 3-year prescriptive period.

    RE: Disability benefits

    The Supreme Court ruled that Apolinario is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.

    Under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, those illnesses, such as diabetes mellitus, which are not listed as an occupational disease are disputably presumed as work-related.3Section 20 (A) (4), Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2010 (Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships [October 26, 2010])

    According to the Court, the effect of the legal presumption in favor of the seafarer is to create a burden on the part of the employer to present evidence to overcome the prima facie case of work-relatedness. Absent any evidence from the employer to defeat the legal presumption, the prima facie case of work-relatedness prevails.

    To reinforce the prima facie case in his favor, Apolinario stated that during the existence of his contract, he experienced recurring dizziness and was diagnosed at As Salama Hospital in Al-Khobar Saudi Arabia to have contracted diabetes mellitus. In fact, while on board the vessel, he was twice sent to As Salama Hospital in Al-Khobar Saudi Arabia for medical treatment. To support his claim, Apolinario presented the medical record issued by the hospital and the different medical certificates of his physicians after his repatriation in Manila stating that he is already physically unfit to return to work due to his diabetes mellitus.

    On the other hand, the Supreme Court found that respondents failed to present a scintilla of proof to establish the lack of casual connection between Apolinario’s disease and his employment as a seafarer.

    The Court stated that had respondents granted Apolinario’s request to undergo a post-employment medical check-up, they could have presented a medical finding to contradict the presumption of work-relatedness of Apolinario’s illness. The post-employment medical check-up could have been the proper basis to determine the seafarer’s illness, whether it was work-related, or its specific grading of disability. Having failed to present any evidence to defeat the presumption of work-relatedness of Apolinario’s diabetes mellitus, the prima facie case that it is work-related prevails.

    Nonetheless, the Supreme Court clarified that the presumption provided under Section 20 (A) (4) is only limited to the “work-relatedness” of an illness. It does not cover and extend to compensability. In this sense, there exists a fine line between the work-relatedness of an illness and the matter of compensability. Work-relatedness merely relates to the assumption that the seafarer’s illness, albeit not listed as an occupational disease, may have been contracted during and in connection with one’s work, whereas compensability pertains to the entitlement to receive compensation and benefits upon a showing that a seafarer’s work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease.

    The Supreme Court noted the medically accepted finding that stress has major effects on a person’s metabolic activity. The effects of stress on glucose metabolism are mediated by a variety of counter-regulatory hormones that are released in response to stress and that result in elevated blood glucose levels and decreased insulin action. In diabetes, because of a relative or absolute lack of insulin, the increase in blood glucose on account of stress cannot be adequately metabolized. Thus, stress is a potential contributor to chronic hyperglycemia in diabetes.

    In this case, to prove that his work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease, Apolinario showed that part of his duties as an Ordinary Seaman in MV Algosaibi 42 involved strenuous workload such as assist in the handling and operation of all deck gear such as topping, cradling and housing of booms; aid the carpenter in the repair work when requested; scale and chip paint, handle lines in the mooring of the ship, assist in the actual tying up and letting go of the vessel and stand as a lookout in the vessel. Apolinario further stated that while inside the vessel for several months, he was exposed to physical and psychological stress due to rush jobs, lack of sleep, heat stress, emergency works and homesickness for being away from his family. From the above enumeration of Apolinario’s duties on board the vessel, he was certainly exposed to various strain and stress — physical, mental and emotional.

    Respondents failed to adduce any contrary medical findings from the company-designated physician to show that Apolinario’s illness was not caused or aggravated by his working conditions on board the vessel. There was also no showing that Apolinario is predisposed to the illness by reason of genetics, obesity or old age. Thus, the Supreme Court considered that the stress and strains he was exposed to on board contributed, even to a small degree, to the development of his disease. Inasmuch as compensability is the entitlement to receive disability compensation upon a showing that a seafarer’s work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease, Apolinario’s disease was thus declared compensable.

    RE: Reportorial Requirement

    While the requirement to report within three working days from repatriation appears to be indispensable in character, the Supreme Court enumerated the established exceptions to this rule:

    • when the seafarer is incapacitated to report to the employer upon his repatriation; and
    • when the employer inadvertently or deliberately refused to submit the seafarer to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician.4Falcon Maritime and Allied Services, Inc., et al. v. Angelito B. Pangasian, G.R. No. 223295, March 13, 2019.

    Here, Apolinario avers that two days after his repatriation to Manila on 11 April 2012, he reported to the office of 88 Aces to get his unpaid wages and for him to be referred to the company designated physician. However, since his repatriation was due to the completion of his six-month Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-approved employment contract, he was told by 88 Aces through Jocson that they could not shoulder his medical expenses. Having been denied to undergo the post medical examination, Apolinario just continued taking the medicine given to him by the doctor in Saudi Arabia.

    Between the two conflicting allegations from Apolinario and respondents, the Supreme Court resolved the doubt in favor of Apolinario. Besides, the factual backdrop of the case supports Apolinario’s allegation that he requested to be referred to a company designated physician. It noted that Apolinario repeatedly experienced dizziness and headaches, and needed medical attention while on board MV Algosaibi 42. In fact, because of his recurring sickness, he was examined twice at As Salama Hospital in Al-Khobar Saudi Arabia and even underwent thorough treatment thereat 10 days prior to his repatriation to Manila. Given Apolinario’s sensitive medical condition days prior to his repatriation, The Court doubted respondents’ allegation that Apolinario did not request to be referred to post-employment medical examination when he arrived in Manila. Apolinario’s medical condition during and after his employment on board lends credence to his claim that he asked to be medically examined by a company-designated physician but he was prevented so by respondents.

    According to the Supreme Court, respondents had the opportunity to refer Apolinario to a company-designated physician, but they chose to escape their responsibility. Between the non-existent medical assessment of the company-designated physician and the medical assessment of Apolinario’s doctor of choice — stating that his disability is permanent and total — the latter evidently stands. Absent a certification from the company-designated physician, the law steps in to conclusively characterize his disability as total and permanent.

    Further Reading:

    • Zonio, Jr. v. 88 Aces Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 239052, October 16, 2019.

  • Extent of Disability vs. Determination of Fitness for Sea Duty

    If there is a claim for total and permanent disability benefits by a seafarer, the following rules shall govern:

    • 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 reported to him;
    • 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;
    • 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
    • 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.

    The extent of the disability (whether total or partial) of the seafarer is determined, not by the number of days that he could not work, but by the disability grading the doctor recognizes based on his resulting incapacity to work and earn his wages.

    However, the determination of the fitness of a seafarer for sea duty is the province of the company-designated physician, subject to the periods prescribed by law.

    Further reading:

    • Intermodal Shipping, Inc. v. Escalona, G.R. No. 243380 April 1, 2019.

  • Rules on Seafarer Claims for Permanent Total Disability Benefits

    Abosta Shipmanagement Corporation/Cido Shipping Company Ltd. hired the seafarer as an able seaman on board the vessel M/V Grand Quest. The seafarer boarded the vessel on 16 June 2009.

    While he was on duty on 26 October 2010, the seafarer felt cramps followed by severe back pain. He was able to inform his master, who then advised him to rest. The next day, the seafarer was unable to stand that he remained in his cabin. When the vessel arrived in Panama, he was diagnosed with a lumbar disc problem and was recommended repatriation.

    On 2 December 2010, the seafarer arrived in Manila and was referred to the company-designated physician, who then proceeded to treat him. On 8 July 2011 the company-designated physician issued a disability rating of “Grade 8 disability — moderate rigidity or 2/3 loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk.”

    The seafarer asserts that despite the treatment he received, his condition did not improve, as the pain and discomfort persisted.

    The seafarer sought treatment from his personal doctor, who conducted his own examination. Said doctor concluded that the nature and extent of the seafarer’s injury rendered him permanently and totally unable to work as a seafarer.

    The seafarer demanded his employers to pay him total and permanent disability. Since the employers declined, the seafarer instituted his complaint for permanent total disability benefits and attorney’s fees against the former.

    Questions:

    1. Is the seafarer entitled to permanent total disability benefits?
    2. Can he be granted attorney’s fees?

    Answers:

    1)

    The seafarer is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.

    Jurisprudence dictates that if there is a claim for total and permanent disability benefits by a seafarer, the following rules shall govern:

    • 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 reported to him;
    • 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;
    • 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
    • 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.

    In the present case, the company-designated physician failed to issue a medical assessment on the seafarer’s disability grading and determine the seafarer’s fitness to work within the prescribed periods.

    From the seafarer’s repatriation and immediate referral to the company-designated physician on 2 December 2010 until the 120th day of his treatment (31 March 2011), the latter did not issue any medical assessment.

    Although on 8 July 2011, the company-designated physician was able to issue a disability rating of “Grade 8 disability — moderate rigidity or 2/3 loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk,” 219 days have already lapsed from 2 December 2020 without any sufficient justification for the extension of the 120-day treatment period.

    Following prevailing jurisprudence, the seafarer’s disability has become permanent and total. Accordingly, the seafarer is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.

    2)

    The seafarer is also entitled to attorney’s fees. This is because under Article 2208, paragraph 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, attorney’s fees can be recovered in actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws.

    Further reading:

    • Abosta Shipmanagement Corp. v. Segui, G.R. No. 214906, January 16, 2019.

    Check Out My Latest YouTube Video

    [embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/embed?listType=playlist&list=UUA0qsY28UIiqNcY45Ez2rjg&layout=gallery[/embedyt]

  • Company-designated Physician’s Failure to Arrive at a Final Assessment of the Seafarer’s Fitness to Work

    In Teekay Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. Mateo,1G.R. No. 243258, January 7, 2019. the Supreme Court reiterated the effect should the company-designated physician fail to issue a final assessment of the seafarer’s fitness to work within the 120/240-day period from medical repatriation. The Court ruled:

    As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent’s work-related injury is deemed total and permanent by operation of law when the company-designated physician failed to arrive at a final assessment of respondent’s fitness to work within the 120/240-day treatment period following his repatriation on November 25, 2015. Moreover, the company-designated physician’s issuance of an Interim Disability Grade 11 is a mere initial determination of petitioner’s condition for the time being and therefore cannot be considered as a definite prognosis. Hence, the award of US$89,100.00 to respondent pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement of the Philippine Seafarers Union, which covered respondent’s employment contract, must be sustained. In this regard, the CA cannot be faulted in sustaining the award of attorney’s fees as respondent was clearly compelled to litigate to protect his interest.

    Further Reading:

    • Teekay Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. Mateo, G.R. No. 243258, January 7, 2019.