G.R. No. 239190 - RAUL D. BITCO, VS. CROSS WORLD MARINE SERVICES, INC., KAPAL (CYPRUS) LTD. AND/OR ELEAZAR G. DIAZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Labor Arbitration Branch finds merit in the complaint for total and permanent disability. The respondent companies Crossworld Marine Services Inc. and Kapal (Cyprus), are held jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant his disability benefit of USD 60,000.00 and 10% Attorney's fees. [15] Aggrieved by the LA's Decision, respondents elevated the case to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for review. NLRC Ruling On May 9, 2017, the NLRC issued a Decision [16] dismissing respondents' appeal and affirming in toto the Decision of the LA. The NLRC adopted the finding of the LA that Bitco was already declared partially and permanently disabled within the 120-day or 240-day period, but he remained incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of said period. [17] The NLRC also ruled that the lack of opinion by a third doctor did not defeat Bitco's cause of action. It noted the permissiveness of Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC, which should be invoked for the protection and benefit of the seafarer. The provision used the phrase "may be agreed jointly" when pertaining to the referral to a third doctor. Hence, the said referral is not mandatory. [18] The respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On May 31, 2017, the NLRC issued a Resolution [19] denying respondents' Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, respondents elevated the matter to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In their petition, respondents argued that Bitco had no cause of action at the time the complaint was filed. There was no evidence that he was incapacitated for work except for the opinion of the company-designated physician. In fact, the company-designated physician gave him a Grade 8 partial disability rating. As regards the allegations that the 240-day period had already lapsed, respondents argue that the number of days alone does not determine the entitlement to disability benefits. Rather, it is the disability ratings that determine the basis for such entitlement. [20] They also claimed that the NLRC gravely erred in stating that the referral to a third doctor is not mandatory and absent the third doctor's opinion, a complaint shall be dismissed for lack of cause of action. [21] As regards the award of attorney's fees, they asserted that Bitco is not entitled to the same since the respondents acted within their rights when they denied his demands for total and permanent disability benefits. [22] Moreover, they also argued that Bitco is not entitled to moral damages, as he failed to allege and prove any of the situations provided in the said provision. [23] On the other hand, Bitco averred that the grounds raised by respondents which question the labor tribunal's ascribing of liability upon them is not a proper subject of a certiorari petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Only errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment, may be dealt with in a petition for certi