SUNIT v. OSM MARITIME

REYNALDO Y. SUNIT, Petitioner vs. OSM MARITIME SERVICES, INC., DOF OSM MARITIME SERVICES A/S, and CAPT. ADONIS B. DONATO, Respondents

G.R. No. 223035

February 27, 2017

Facts:

Respondent, OSM Maritime Services, Inc. (OSM Maritime), the local agent of respondent DOF OSM Maritime Services A/S, hired petitioner Reynaldo Sunit (Sunit) to work onboard the vessel Skandi Texel as Able Body Seaman for three (3) months with a monthly salary of $689. Deemed incorporated in the employment contract is the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and the NIS AMOSUP CBA. During his employment, petitioner fell from the vessel's tank and suffered a broken right femur. He was immediately brought to a hospital in the Netherlands for treatment and was eventually repatriated due to medical reason. Upon his arrival in Manila, he immediately underwent a post-employment medical examination and treatment for his injury at the Metropolitan Medical Center.

The company-designated doctor issued a Medical Report giving petitioner an interim disability Grade of 10. Dissatisfied with the company doctor's medical report, petitioner sought the opinion of another doctor, who recommended a disability grade of three (3) in his Medical Report. After further medical treatment, petitioner was assessed with a final disability grade of 10 by the company physician of respondent OSM Maritime. Respondents offered petitioner disability benefit of $30,225 in accordance with the disability Grade 10 that the company-designated doctor issued. Petitioner, however, refused the offer and filed a claim for a disability benefit of USD$150,000.00 based on the POEA-SEC and NIS AMOSUP CBA.

The CA added that the extent of disability, whether total or partial, is determined, not by the number of days that petitioner could not work, but by the disability grading the doctor recognizes based on his resulting incapacity to work and earn his wages. Thus, the mere fact that petitioner was incapacitated to work for a period exceeding 120 days does not automatically entitle him to total and permanent disability benefits. Concomitantly, the CA stressed that the recommendation of the Doctor of Grade 9 disability and his determination that the latter's disability is partial and not total are binding on the parties.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the CA committed serious error of law in awarding a partial disability of grade 9 to petitioner.

2. Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing petitioners' claims for damages and attorney's fees despite respondents' commission of bad faith in the performance of their obligations.

Ruling:

The Court resolves to grant the petition. Permanent disability is defined as the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days (or 240 days, as the case may be), regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body. Total disability, meanwhile, 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.

The above-quoted provision clearly does not state a specific period within which the third doctor must render his or her disability assessment. The CA, thus, correctly held that the 240-day period for assessing the degree of disability only applies to the company-designated doctor, and not the third doctor.