Valenzona v. Fair Shipping Corp.

G.R. No. 176884 (October 19, 2011)

Carmelito N. Valenzona wins permanent disability benefits, citing unfitness for work and the 120-day rule.

Facts:

Carmelito N. Valenzona (petitioner) was hired by Fair Shipping Corporation, representing Sejin Lines Company Limited, as a 2nd Assistant Engineer aboard the vessel M/V Morelos for a nine-month contract. Prior to his embarkation on May 23, 2001, he was declared medically fit to work. On September 29, 2001, while on board, he experienced chest pain and was subsequently confined in a medical facility in Mexico, where he was diagnosed with hypertensive crisis and high blood pressure. After being repatriated to the Philippines on October 8, 2001, he was examined by Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz, the company-designated physician, who diagnosed him with hypertension and treated him until April 25, 2002, when he was declared fit to work.

Dissatisfied with this assessment, Valenzona sought a second opinion from Dr. Mapapala, who diagnosed him with hypertensive cardiovascular disease. Following this, Valenzona demanded payment for his sickness allowance and permanent disability benefits, but his requests were ignored. He then consulted another physician, Dr. Rodrigo F. Guanlao, who declared him unfit to work in any capacity. Consequently, Valenzona filed a complaint for recovery of disability benefits, sickness allowance, attorney's fees, and moral damages.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Valenzona, awarding him the balance of his sickness allowance but denying his claim for disability benefits, citing that the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) only covered disabilities resulting from accidents, not illnesses. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upheld this decision, stating that Valenzona was not entitled to disability benefits as he was declared fit to work by the company-designated physician. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC's ruling, leading Valenzona to file a petition for certiorari.

Legal Issues:

  1. Is Valenzona entitled to permanent disability benefits despite being declared fit to work by the company-designated physician?
  2. Does the duration of his inability to work for more than 120 days automatically entitle him to permanent disability benefits?
  3. Is Valenzona entitled to attorney's fees?

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

  • Valenzona contended that he was entitled to permanent disability benefits because he was declared unfit to work by his private physicians, who were specialists, as opposed to Dr. Cruz, who was a general and cancer specialist.
  • He argued that the certification of fitness to work was issued after 199 days from his repatriation, thus his disability should be considered total and permanent.

Respondents’ Arguments:

  • The respondents maintained that Valenzona was not entitled to permanent disability benefits because he was assessed as fit to work by the company-designated physician, whose evaluation was deemed more credible due to the duration of treatment.
  • They argued that the mere inability to work for more than 120 days does not automatically qualify him for total permanent disability benefits, and that the assessment of disability should be based on the Schedule of Disability under the POEA contract.

Court’s Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Valenzona, stating that he was entitled to permanent disability benefits. The Court emphasized that the certification from the company-designated physician declaring him fit to work was issued after 199 days from his repatriation, exceeding the 120-day threshold that indicates permanent total disability. The Court reiterated that permanent disability is defined as the inability to perform work for more than 120 days, regardless of whether the worker loses the use of any body part.

The Court also clarified that the assessment of the company-designated physician does not negate the entitlement to disability benefits if the worker has been unable to work for the requisite period. The ruling in Quitoriano v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc. was cited, reinforcing that the timing of the fitness certification is crucial in determining the nature of the disability.

Furthermore, the Court found that Valenzona was entitled to attorney's fees, as he was compelled to litigate due to the respondents' failure to satisfy his valid claim.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • Permanent total disability is defined by the inability to work for more than 120 days, regardless of the nature of the injury or illness.
  • The assessment of a company-designated physician does not automatically disqualify a worker from receiving disability benefits if the worker has been unable to work for the requisite period.
  • The right to attorney's fees may be granted when a claimant is forced to litigate to recover valid claims.