MAERSK FILIPINAS vs. RAMOS

MAERSK FILIPINAS CREWING INC., and MAERSK CO. IOM LTD., Petitioners, vs. JOSELITO R. RAMOS, Respondent

Maersk Filipinas Crewing Inc., and Maersk Co. IOM Ltd. Vs. Joselito R. Ramos

G.R. No. 184256

January 18, 2017

Facts:

On October 3, 2001, petitioner Maersk ltd., through its local manning agent petitioner Maersk Inc., employed private respondent as able-seaman of M/V NKOSSA II for a period of four (4) months. Within the contract period and while on board the vessel, on November 14, 2001, private respondent’s left eye was hit by a screw. He was repatriated to Manila on November 21, 2001 and was referred to Dr. Salvador Salceda, the company-designated physician, for [a] check-up.

Private respondent was examined by Dr. Anthony Martin S. Dolor on November 26, 2001 and was diagnosed with "corneal scar and cystic macula, left, post-traumatic." On November 29, 2001, he underwent a "repair of corneal perforation and removal of foreign body to anterior chamber, left eye." He was discharged on December 2, 2001 with prescribed home medications and had regular check-ups. He was referred to another ophthalmologist who opined that "no more improvement can be attained on the left eye but patient can return back to duty with the left eye disabled by 30%."

On May 22, 2002, he was examined by Dr. Angel C. Aliwalas, Jr. and was diagnosed with "corneal scar with post-traumatic cataract formation, left eye." On May 28, 2002, he underwent [an] eye examination and glaucoma test.

Since private respondent's demand for disability benefit[s] was rejected by petitioners, he then filed with the NLRC a complaint for total permanent disability, illness allowance, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. The parties filed with the NLRC their respective position papers, reply, and rejoinder.

On July 31, 2002, Dr. Dolor stated that although private respondent's left eye cannot be improved by medical treatment, he can return to duty and is still fit to work. His normal right eye can compensate for the discrepancy with the use of correctional glasses. On August 30, 2002, petitioners paid private respondent's illness allowance equivalent to one hundred twenty (120) days salary.

On October 5, 2002, private respondent was examined by Dr. Roseny Mae Catipon-Singson of Casa Medica, Inc. (formerly MEDISERV Southmall, Inc.), Alabang, Muntinlupa City and was diagnosed to have ''traumatic cataract with corneal scaring, updrawn pupil of the anterior segment of maculapathy OS. His best corrected vision is 20/400 with difficulty." Dr. Catipon-Singson opined that private respondent "cannot be employed for any work requiring good vision unless condition improves."

On November 19, 2002, private respondent visited again the ophthalmologist at the Medical Center Manila who recommended "cataract surgery with intra-ocular lens implantation," after evaluation of the retina shall have been done."

In his letter dated January 13, 2003 addressed to Jerome de los Angeles, General Manager of petitioner Maersk Inc., Dr. Dolor answered that the evaluation of the physician from ONM could not have progressed in such a short period of time, which is approximately one month after he issued the medical report dated April 13, 2002, and a review of the medical reports from PGH and the tonometry findings on the left and right eye showed that they were within normal range, hence, could not be labeled as glaucoma.

On 15 May 2003, the labor arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision dismissing the Complaint. On 28 July 2003, respondent filed a Manifestation stating that on 21 July 2003, his counsel's messenger tried to file with the NLRC a Notice of Appeal with Memorandum of Appeal. In reply to respondent's Manifestation, petitioners filed a Motion for Outright Dismissal on the ground that the appeal had been filed out of time.

On 30 July and 12 September 2003, respondent underwent cataract extraction on both eyes. On 7 January 2004, he was fitted with correctional glasses and evaluated. Dr. Dolor found that the former's "right eye is 20/20, the left eye is 20/70, and when both eyes are being used, his best corrected vision is 20/20." On the basis of that report, respondent was pronounced fit to work.

On 31 January 2006, the NLRC issued a Resolution granting respondent's appeal and setting aside the LA's decision:

On 17 February 2006, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the NLRC denied in its Resolution dated 31 March 2006. Upon intermediate appellate review, the CA rendered a Decision on 31 July 2007. The CA affirmed all the findings of the NLRC.

On 24 August 2007, petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration. On 8 August 2008, the CA issued a Resolution denying the aforementioned motion.

Issue:

Whether respondent is partially disabled and therefore entitled to disability compensation.

Held:

Yes, respondent is entitled to disability compensation.

Section 2 of Rule VII of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation provides:

(c) 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.

Permanent partial disability occurs when an employee loses the use of any particular anatomical part of his body which disables him to continue with his former work.

Disability does not refer to the injury or the pain that it has occasioned, but to the loss or impairment of earning capacity. There is disability when there is a diminution of earning power because of actual absence from work. This absence must be due to the injury or illness arising from, and in the course of, employment.

In this case, while petitioners' own company-designated physician, Dr. Dolor, certified that respondent was still fit to work, the former admitted in the same breath that respondent's left eye could no longer be improved by medical treatment, Dr. Dolor had in fact diagnosed respondent's left eye as permanently disabled. Respondent due to the injury to his left eye and loss of vision has suffered the impairment of his earning capacity and can no longer practice his profession as a seaman.

Further, during the operation, which supposedly led to the correction of respondent's vision, he was not able to reassume work as a seaman, resulting in the loss and impairment of his earning capacity. It is also interesting to note that despite petitioners' contentions that respondent had been diagnosed as fit to return to work, no reemployment offer was ever extended to him.