This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2016-01-20 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, citing Vergara v, Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.,[44] the Court in Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission[45] harmonized the application of the Labor Code, its Rules and Regulations and the POEA-SEC in the determination of permanent and total disability in this manner:[T]he seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the company-designated physician within three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis and treatment. For the duration of the treatment but in no case to exceed 120 days, the seaman is on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to work. He receives his basic wage during this period until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is defined under the POEA Standard Employment Contract and by applicable Philippine laws. If the 120 days initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a partial or total disability already exists. The seaman may of course also be declared fit to work at any time such declaration is justified by his medical condition. | |||||
|
2014-09-03 |
CARPIO, ACTING C.J. |
||||
| Just because the seafarer is unable to perform his job and is undergoing medical treatment for more than 120 days does not automatically entitle the seafarer to total and permanent disability compensation.[26] In this case, petitioner's medical treatment lasted more than 120 days but less than 240 days, after which the company-designated doctor gave petitioner a final disability grading under the POEA schedule of disabilities of "grade 11 - complete immobility of an ankle joint in normal position." Thus, before the maximum 240-day medical treatment period expired, petitioner was issued a final disability grade 11 which is merely equivalent to a permanent partial disability, since under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, only those classified under grade 1 are considered total and permanent disability. Clearly, petitioner is only entitled to permanent partial disability compensation, since his condition cannot be considered as permanent total disability. | |||||
|
2014-06-04 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In Magsaysay Maritime Corporation vs. NLRC,[30] citing Vergara vs. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.,[31] the Court reiterated that the seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the company-designated physician within three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis and treatment. For the duration of the treatment but in no case to exceed 120 days, the seaman is on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to work. He receives his basic wage during this period until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is defined under the POEA-SEC and by applicable Philippine laws. If the 120 days initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a partial or total disability already exists. The seaman may, of course, also be declared fit to work at any time such declaration is justified by his medical condition.[32] | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| It found no logical and causal connection between the act of pilferage as well as the act of causing the flooding in the engine room and the conclusion that respondent's injury was self-inflicted. It added that it was contrary to human nature and experience for respondent to burn himself.[38] Further, the CA noted that the location of the burns on the different parts of respondent's body was more consistent with respondent's assertion that certain chemicals splashed all over his body rather than petitioners' theory of self-inflicted injury. [39] Moreover, it pointed out that no evidence was presented to show that respondent had no business near the engine room.[40] In the same vein, it observed that the mere finding of a cigarette lighter was inadequate to justify the conclusion that he burned himself.[41] Consequently, for petitioners' failure to discharge the burden of proving that respondent's injury was directly attributable to him as required under Section 20 (D) of the POEA-SEC, the CA found that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion and, thus, held petitioners liable to pay respondent permanent total disability benefits in the amount of US$60,000.00, or its peso equivalent.[42] | |||||