FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 218871. January 11, 2017.]

JEBSENS * MARITIME, INC., SEA CHEFS LTD., ** and ENRIQUE M.

ABOITIZ , petitioners, vs. FLORVIN G. RAPIZ , respondent.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE , J : p

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari 1 are the Decision 2 dated January
20, 2015 and the Resolution 3 dated June 5, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. SP No. 130442, which af rmed the Decision 4 dated January 25, 2013 and the
Resolution 5 dated May 22, 2013 of the Office of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (VA)
of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) in AC-305-NCMB-NCR-78-01-
08-12 and, accordingly, ordered petitioners Jebsens Maritime, Inc., Sea Chefs Ltd. (Sea
Chefs), and Mr. Enrique Aboitiz (Aboitiz; collectively, petitioners) to jointly and severally
pay respondent Florvin G. Rapiz (respondent) permanent and total disability bene ts in
the amount of US$60,000.00 plus attorney's fees in the amount of US$6,000.00 or their
peso equivalent at the time of payment.
The Facts
On March 16, 2011, Jebsens, on behalf of its foreign principal, Sea Chefs,
engaged the services of respondent to work on board the M/V Mercury as a buffet
cook for a period of nine (9) months with a basic monthly salary of US$501.00. 6 On
March 30, 2011, respondent boarded the said vessel. Sometime in September 2011,
respondent experienced excruciating pain and swelling on his right wrist/forearm while
lifting a heavy load of meat. A consultation with the ship doctor revealed that
respondent was suffering from severe "Tendovaginitis DeQuevain" 7 which caused his
medical repatriation since it was not possible for him to work without using his right
forearm. 8
On October 14, 2011, 9 respondent was repatriated to the Philippines and
underwent consultation, medication, and therapy with the company-designated
physician. After a lengthy treatment, the company-designated physician issued a 7th
and Final Summary Medical Report 1 0 and a Disability Grading 1 1 both dated January
24, 2012, diagnosing respondent with "Flexor Carpi Radialis Tendinitis, Right; Sprain,
Right thumb; Extensor Carpi Ulnaris Tendinitis, Right," and classifying his condition as a
"Grade 11" disability pursuant to the disability grading provided for in the 2010
Philippine Overseas Employment Association-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-
SEC). Dissatis ed, respondent consulted an independent physician, who classi ed his
condition as a Grade 10 disability. 1 2 Thereafter, respondent requested petitioners to
pay him total and permanent disability bene ts, which the latter did not heed, thus,
constraining the former to le a Notice to Arbitrate before the NCMB. As the parties
failed to amicably settle the case, the parties submitted the same to the VA for
adjudication. 1 3
Respondent argued, inter alia, that while both the company-designated and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 independent physicians gave him disability ratings of Grade 11 and 10, respectively, he
is nevertheless entitled to permanent and total disability bene ts as he was unable to
work as a cook for a period of 120 days from his medical repatriation. 1 4 On the other
hand, petitioners maintained that respondent is only entitled to Grade 11 disability
benefits pursuant to the classification made by the company-designated physician. 1 5
The VA Ruling
In a Decision 1 6 dated January 25, 2013, the VA ruled in respondent's favor and,
accordingly, ordered petitioners to pay him permanent and total disability bene ts in
the amount of US$60,000.00 plus attorney's fees in the amount of US$6,000.00 or their
peso equivalent at the time of payment. 1 7
The VA found that respondent is entitled to permanent and total disability
bene ts, considering that: (a) he suffered his disability on his right hand while working
at petitioners' vessel; (b) he can no longer pursue his work on board the vessel as a
cook due to the recurrent nature of his disability; and (c) such disability persisted
beyond 120 days after his medical repatriation. 1 8 The VA also found respondent to be
entitled to attorney's fees as he was forced to litigate to protect his rights and interest.
19 CAIHTE

Petitioners led a motion for reconsideration, 2 0 but the same was denied in a
Resolution 2 1 dated May 22, 2013. Aggrieved, they appealed to the CA via a petition for
review. 2 2
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 2 3 dated January 20, 2015, the CA af rmed the VA ruling. Similar to
the VA's ndings, the CA held that: (a) respondent's disability should be considered
permanent and total because he was unable to continue his work as a seaman for more
than 120 days from his medical repatriation on October 11, 2011; and (b) he is entitled
to attorney's fees as he was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights
and interests. 2 4
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, 2 5 which was, however, denied in a
Resolution 2 6 dated June 5, 2015; hence, this petition.
The Issue before the Court
The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly
held that respondent is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
In this case, the VA and the CA's award of permanent and total disability bene ts
in respondent's favor was heavily anchored on his failure to obtain any gainful
employment for more than 120 days after his medical repatriation. However, in Ace
Navigation Company v. Garcia , 2 7 the Court explained that the company-designated
physician is given an additional 120 days, or a total of 240 days from repatriation, to
give the seafarer further treatment and, thereafter, make a declaration as to the nature
of the latter's disability, viz.:
As these provisions operate, 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 declared t to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the company
to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is de ned under the
POEA-Standard Employment Contract [(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 permanent partial or total disability already exists. The
seaman may of course also be declared t to work at any time such
declaration is justified by his medical condition .
xxx xxx xxx
As we outlined above, a temporary total disability only becomes
permanent when so declared by the company physician within the
periods he is allowed to do so, or upon the expiration of the maximum
240-day medical treatment period without a declaration of either
tness to work or the existence of a permanent disability . In the present
case, while the initial 120-day treatment or temporary total disability period was
exceeded, the company-designated doctor duly made a declaration well within
the extended 240-day period that the petitioner was t to work. 2 8 (Emphases
and underscoring in the original)
In Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr. , 2 9 the Court further clari ed
that for the company-designated physician to avail of the extended 240-day period, he
must rst perform some signi cant act to justify an extension ( e.g., that the illness still
requires medical attendance beyond the initial 120 days but not to exceed 240 days);
otherwise, the seafarer's disability shall be conclusively presumed to be permanent and
total. 3 0 Accordingly, the Court laid down the following guidelines that shall govern
seafarers' claims for permanent and total disability benefits:
1. The company-designated physician must issue a nal medical
assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days
from the time the seafarer reported to him;
2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within
the period of 120 days, without any justi able reason, then the seafarer's
disability becomes permanent and total;
3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within
the period of 120 days with a suf cient justi cation ( e.g., seafarer required
further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period
of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer
has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has
sufficient justification to extend the period; and
DETACa

4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment

within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability
becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification. 3 1
Here, records reveal that on October 14, 2011 , respondent was medically
repatriated for what was initially diagnosed by the ship doctor as "Tendovaginitis
DeQuevain." As early as January 24, 2012 , or just 102 days from repatriation , the
company-designated physician had already given his nal assessment on respondent
when he diagnosed the latter with "Flexor Carpi Radialis Tendinitis, Right; Sprain, Right
thumb; Extensor Carpi Ulnaris Tendinitis, Right" and gave a nal disability rating of
"Grade 11" pursuant to the disability grading provided in the 2010 POEA-SEC. 3 2 In view
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 of the nal disability rating made by the company-designated physician classifying
respondent's disability as merely permanent and partial 3 3 — which was not refuted
by the independent physician except that respondent's condition was classi ed as a
Grade 10 disability — it is plain error to award permanent and total disability bene ts to
respondent.
Moreover, it bears noting that as per respondent's contract 3 4 with Jebsens, his
employment is covered by the 2010 POEA-SEC. It is well-settled that the POEA-SEC is
the law between the parties and, as such, its provisions bind both of them. 3 5 Under
Section 20 (A) (6) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, the determination of the proper disability
bene ts to be given to a seafarer shall depend on the grading system provided by
Section 32 of the said contract, regardless of the actual number of days that the
seafarer underwent treatment:
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS. —
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or
illness during the term of his contract are as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
6. In case of permanent total or partial disability of the
seafarer caused by either injury or illness[,] the seafarer shall be
compensated in accordance with the schedule of bene ts
enumerated in Section 32 of this Contract. Computation of his
bene ts arising from an illness or disease shall be governed by
the rates and the rules of compensation applicable at the time the
illness or disease was contracted.
The disability shall be based solely on the disability
gradings provided under Section 32 of this Contract, and
shall not be measured or determined by the number of
days a seafarer is under treatment or the number of days
in which sickness allowance is paid. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
In this case, respondent's disability was already determined as only permanent
and partial, in view of its classi cation as Grade 11 by the company-designated
physician and Grade 10 by the independent physician. As such, the award of
US$60,000.00 representing Grade 1 (i.e., permanent and total disability) bene ts in
favor of respondent clearly has no basis and, consequently, must be struck down. aDSIHc

Be that as it may, it remains undisputed that respondent suffered an injury while

on board the M/V Mercury, a work-related disability that is clearly compensable as it is
a permanent and partial disability, as classi ed by both the company-designated and
independent physicians. As already adverted to, there is a slight discrepancy with the
classi cations of the aforesaid physicians, as the former rated respondent's disability
as Grade 11, while the latter's rating was Grade 10. In this regard, the Court rules that
the ndings of the company-designated physician should prevail, considering that he
examined, diagnosed, and treated respondent from his repatriation on October 14,
2011 until he was assessed with a Grade 11 disability rating on January 24, 2012;
whereas the independent physician only examined him sparingly on March 13, 2012. In
Formerly INC Shipmanagement Incorporated (now INC Navigation Co. Philippines, Inc.)
v. Rosales , 3 6 the Court held that under these circumstances, the assessment of the
company-designated physician is more credible for having been arrived at after months
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 of medical attendance and diagnosis, compared with the assessment of a private
physician done in one day on the basis of an examination or existing medical records.
3 7 In view of the foregoing, respondent is therefore entitled to permanent and partial
disability bene ts corresponding to a Grade 11 rating in the amount of US$7,465.00 or
its peso equivalent at the time of payment, 3 8 which shall then earn legal interest at the
rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until fully paid. 3 9
Finally, the Court nds that the award of attorney's fees lacks legal basis and,
perforce, should be deleted. 4 0
WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED . The Decision dated January 20, 2015
and the Resolution dated June 5, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
130442 are hereby MODIFIED , ordering petitioners Jebsens Maritime, Inc., Sea Chefs
Ltd., and Enrique M. Aboitiz to jointly and severally pay respondent Florvin G. Rapiz
permanent and partial disability bene ts corresponding to a Grade 11 disability under
the 2010 POEA-SEC in the amount of US$7,465.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of
payment, with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of
this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. ETHIDa

Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Del Castillo and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

* "JEBSEN" in the petition before the Court (see rollo, p. 15).

** "SEA CHEFS CRUISES LTD" in the Contract of Employment (see id. at 128).
1. Id. at 15-54.

2. Id. at 56-63. Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting with Associate Justices Hakim S.
Abdulwahid and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla concurring.

3. Id. at 66-67.
4. CA rollo, pp. 39-55. Signed by Chairman AVA Jesus S. Silo and Members AVA Allan S.
Montano and AVA Froilan A. Bagabaldo.
5. Id. at 56-57.

6. See Contract of Employment; rollo, p. 128.

7. "De Quervain's Tenosynovitis" in the Initial Medical Report dated October 18, 2011 (see id. at
131) and 7th and Final Summary Medical Report dated January 24, 2012 (see id. at
142). "De Quervain tendinitis," medically defined as "[a] tendon is thick, bendable tissue
that connects muscle to bone. Two tendons run from the back of your thumb down the
side of your wrist. [It] is caused when these tendons are swollen and irritated." See
<https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000537.htm> and
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pinc/articles/PMC2568250/pdf/jnma00166-0036.pdf>
(visited January 9, 2017).
8. Rollo, p. 57.

9. In the various medical reports, respondent's date of repatriation was on October 13, 2011
(see id. at 131-143).

10. Id. at 142-143.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com

 11. CA rollo, p. 88.

12. See Medical Evaluation Report dated March 13, 2012; rollo, pp. 145-146.
13. Id. at 57.
14. See Position Paper dated October 29, 2012; CA rollo, pp. 91-101.

15. See Position Paper dated October 30, 2012; id. at 58-81.
16. Id. at 39-55.

17. Id. at 54-55.

18. See id. at 51-53.
19. Id. at 54.
20. Not attached to the records of this case.

21. CA rollo, pp. 56-57.

22. Id. at 3-29.
23. Rollo, pp. 56-63.
24. See id. at 59-62.

25. See motion for reconsideration dated February 16, 2015; CA rollo, pp. 364-387.
26. Rollo, pp. 66-67.
27. G.R. No. 207804, June 17, 2015, 759 SCRA 274.
28. Id. at 283, citing Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., 588 Phil. 895, 912-913
(2008).
29. G.R. No. 211882, July 29, 2015, 764 SCRA 431.
30. See id. at 453.

31. Id. at 453-454.

32. See rollo, pp. 142-143 and CA rollo, p. 88.
33. Section 32 of the 2010 POEA-SEC provides that only disabilities classified as Grade 1 shall
be deemed as permanent and total.
34. See rollo, p. 128.
35. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Simbajon, G.R. No. 203472, July 9, 2014, 729 SCRA
631, 645, citing Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. v. Dumadag, G.R. No. 194362,
June 26, 2013, 700 SCRA 53, 65.
36. G.R. No. 195832, October 1, 2014, 737 SCRA 438.
37. Id. at 453.
38. Under Section 32 of the 2010 POEA-SEC, a seafarer who suffers a Grade 11 disability is
entitled to US$50,000.00 multiplied by 14.93%, or a total of US$7,465.00.
39. See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 278-283 (2013).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 40. "Anent the issue on attorney's fees, the general rule is that the same cannot be recovered as
part of damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to
litigate. They are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The power of the court
to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal, and
equitable justi cation. Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons
or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney's fees may not be awarded where
no suf cient showing of bad faith could be re ected in a party's persistence in a case
other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause." ( Spouses Vergara
v. Sonkin, G.R. No. 193659, June 15, 2015, 757 SCRA 442, 456-457; citations omitted)

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com