G.R. No. 177578 - MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION AND/OR WASTFEL-LARSEN MANAGEMENT A/S*, VS. OBERTO S. LOBUSTA. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The challenged resolution of the NLRC dated 20 June 2002 is MODIFIED, declaring [Lobusta] to be suffering from permanent total disability. [Petitioners] are ORDERED to pay [Lobusta] the following: a) US$2,060.00 as medical allowance, b) US$60,000.00 as disability benefits, and c) 5% of the total monetary award as attorneys fees x x x x [23] The CA faulted the NLRC for plucking only particular phrases from Dr. Davids report and said that the NLRC cannot wantonly disregard the full import of said report. The CA ruled that Lobusta's disability brought about by his bronchial asthma is permanent and total as he had been unable to work since May 14, 1998 up to the present or for more than 120 days, and because Dr. David found him not fit to return to work as an able seaman. Hence, this petition which raises two legal issues: I. WHETHER OR NOT THE POEA CONTRACT CONSIDERS THE MERE LAPSE OF MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED TWENTY (120) DAYS AS TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY. II. WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS LEGAL BASIS TO AWARD RESPONDENT LOBUSTA ATTORNEYS FEES. [24] Petitioners argue that the CA erred in applying the provisions of the Labor Code instead of the provisions of the POEA contract in determining Lobustas disability, and in ruling that the mere lapse of 120 days entitles Lobusta to total and permanent disability benefits. The CA allegedly erred also in holding them liable for attorneys fees, despite the absence of legal and factual bases. The petition lacks merit. Petitioners are mistaken that it is only the POEA Standard Employment Contract that must be considered in determining Lobusta's disability. In Palisoc v. Easways Marine, Inc. , [25] we said that whether the Labor Code s provision on permanent total disability applies to seafarers is already a settled matter. In Palisoc , we cited the earlier case of Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission [26] where we said (1) that the standard employment contract for seafarers was formulated by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under Executive Order No. 247 [27] 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; (2) that Section 29 of the 1996 POEA Standard Employment Contract itself provides that all rights and obligations of the parties to the contract, including the annexes thereof, shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, international conventions, treaties and covenants where the Philippines is a signatory; and (3) that even without this provision, a contract of labor is so impressed with public interest that the 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. [28] In affirming the Labor Code concept of permanent total disability, Remi