WHEREFORE,

the petition is DISMISSED. total disability to Filipino seafarers, it holding that the
Costs against petitioner. notion of disability is intimately related to the workers
SO ORDERED. capacity to earn, what is compensated being not his injury
or illness but his inability to work resulting in the
Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,
impairment of his earning capacity; hence, disability
Bersamin, and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur. should be understood less on its medical significance but
Petition dismissed. more on the loss of earning capacity.
Note.A motion for reconsideration filed out of PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision
time is a pro forma motion which does not toll the and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
running of the reglementary period. (Philippine The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Buna, 530 Napoleon A. Concepcion for petitioner.
SCRA 444 [2007]) Herbert A. Tria and Dennis G. Acaban for
o0o respondent.
G.R. No. 179868. January 21, 2010.*RIZALDY M. CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
QUITORIANO, petitioner, vs. JEBSENS MARITIME, Respondent Jebsens Maritime, Inc.
INC./MA. THERESA GUTAY and/or ATLE JEBSENS (represented by Ma. Theresa Gutay), on behalf of
MANAGEMENT A/S,1 respondents. its foreign principal co-respondent Atle Jebsens
Labor Law; Seafarers; Disability Benefits; The notion Management A/S, hired2 on January 13, 2001
of disability is intimately related to the workers capacity
Rizaldy M. Quitoriano (petitioner) as 2nd Officer
to earn, what is compensated being not his injury but his
aboard the vessel M/V Trimnes for a period of six
inability to work resulting in the impairment of his earning
capacity; Disability should be understood less on its months with a basic monthly salary of US$936.3On
medical significance but more on the loss of earning May 23, 2001, petitioner, who was assigned as
capacity.In accordance with the avowed policy of the navigating officer from 12:00 midnight to 4:00 a.m.
State to give maximum aid and full protection to labor, the and port watcher from 12:00 midnight to 6:00 a.m.,
Court has applied the Labor Code concept of permanent
complained of dizziness with severe headache, Transient ischemic attack
general body weakness, chest pains, easy MEDICATIONS:
fatigability, weak grip strength, and numbness Diovan 80mg/capsule once daily
on the left side of his body and was observed to Sulodexide one tablet two times daily
be dragging his left foot, his mouth slightly Aspilet one tablet once daily
down to one side, and his speech slurred.4When RECOMMENDATION:
the vessel berthed on May 26, 2001 at Port Huelva, Cranial CT scan
Spain, petitioner was brought to a hospital where Carotid Doppler
he was diagnosed as suffering from hypertension He is advised to come back on June 14, 2001.7
arterial or mild stroke.5 Since his health On November 16, 2001 or 169 days after
condition did not improve, petitioner was petitioners repatriation, Dr. Cruz issued a medical
repatriated to the Philippines on May 30, 2001 to report declaring him fit to work, thus:
undergo further medical examination and The patient has no nuchal pain, headache, chest pain and
treatment.Upon arrival in Manila, petitioner dizziness noted. His blood pressure is normal at 130/87.
underwent several tests at the Medical Center There is no motor or sensory deficit noted. Triglycerides
and routine urinalysis were within normal limits. He was
Manila under the care of Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz (Dr. evaluated by our cardiologist and neurologist who allowed
Cruz), the company-designated physician. On June him to resume his previous activities.
6, 2001, Dr. Cruz, noting that petitioner still DIAGNOSIS:
complain[ed] of chest pain and easy fatigability,6 Hypertension
gave the following diagnosis, medications and Cerebrovascular disease, right internal capsule
recommendation: probably ischemic or infarct
DIAGNOSIS: He is fit to work effective today, November 16,
Hypertension 2001.8 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
 Petitioner later sought the opinion of an real health condition; and that his illness, given its
independent internist-cardiologist, Dr. Sharon A. delicate nature, could recur anytime once he
Lacson of the Philippine Heart Center, who resumes sea duties.13By Decision of July 5, 2004,
diagnosed him as suffering from hypertension Labor Arbiter Madjayran H. Ajan dismissed
cardiovascular disease and hyperlipidemia.9 Dr. petitioners complaint, finding that petitioner
Abdias V. Aquino of the same hospital also found ha[d] recovered from his disability based on the
him to have cerebral infarction, R, basal ganglia company-designated physicians fit to work
area.10Petitioner thereupon repeatedly asked certification.14On appeal by petitioner, the NLRC, by
respondents for full permanent disability Decision15 of August 31, 2005, affirmed with
compensation but was unsuccessful. He thus filed modification the Labor Arbiters findings by
on February 26, 2002 a complaint to recover ordering respondents to allow [petitioner] to
permanent total disability compensation of resume sea duty, thus:
US$80,000, as provided for in the Collective Since x x x the Labor Arbiter based his decision on the
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) forged with opinion of the company-designated physician that
respondents, and attorneys fees before the appellant was declared fit to work to resume sea duty,
We have no reason to disturb his finding, x x x.
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
But complainant should be allowed to resume
Arbitration Office in Quezon City, docketed as
sea duty considering the fit to work findings of the
NLRC-NCR OFW Case No. 02-02-0561-
company-designated physician.
00.11Respondents disclaimed petitioners
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
entitlement to any disability benefits in view of the
rendered affirming the assailed decision of the
company-designated physicians certification that
Labor Arbiter with slight modification by ordering
he is fit to work.12 Petitioner countered, however,
the respondents to allow complainant to resume
that the fit to work assessment did not reflect his
sea duty.
 SO ORDERED.16 (Underscoring and emphasis but his inability to work resulting in the impairment
supplied) of his earning capacity; hence, disability should be
Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the understood less on its medical significance but
NLRC decision having been denied by Resolution of more on the loss of earning capacity.20
December 28, 2005, he brought the case on The standard employment contract for seafarers was
Certiorari to the Court of Appeals which, by formulated by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under
Decision17 of March 8, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 93332, E.O. No. 247 to secure the best terms and conditions of
employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure
affirmed the NLRC decision, and by Resolution of compliance therewith and to promote and protect the
September 14, 2007,18 denied his Motion for well-being of Filipino workers overseas. Even without this
Reconsideration thereof. provision, a contract of labor is so impressed with public
Hence, the present Petition for Review on interest that the New Civil Code expressly subjects it to
Certiorari, petitioner faulting the Court of Appeals the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining,
for not finding that his disability is considered strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working
permanent and total, and for not awarding him conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects (Art. 1700).
attorneys fees. Thus, the Court has applied the Labor Code concept
The petition is impressed with merit. of permanent total disability to the case of
In accordance with the avowed policy of the seafarers. x x x.
State to give maximum aid and full protection to x x x x
labor, the Court has applied the Labor Code There are three kinds of disability benefits under
concept of permanent total disability to Filipino the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. No. 626: (1)
seafarers,19 it holding that the notion of disability is temporary total disability, (2) permanent total
intimately related to the workers capacity to earn, disability, and (3) permanent partial disability.
what is compensated being not his injury or illness Section 2, Rule VII of the Implementing Rules of
Book V of the Labor Code differentiates the
disabilities as follows: sustained, the employee is unable to perform his
Sec. 2. Disability.(a) A total disability is customary job for more than 120 days and he does
temporary if as a result of the injury or sickness the not come within the coverage of Rule X of the
employee is unable to perform any gainful Amended Rules on Employees Compensability
occupation for a continuous period not exceeding (which, in more detailed manner, describes what
120 days, except as otherwise provided for in Rule constitutes temporary total disability), then the
X of these Rules. said employee undoubtedly suffers from
(b) A disability is total and permanent if as a result permanent total disability regardless of whether
of the injury or sickness the employee is unable to or not he loses the use of any part of his body.
perform any gainful occupation for a continuous A total disability does not require that the
period exceeding 120 days, except as otherwise employee be absolutely disabled or totally
provided for in Rule X of these Rules. paralyzed. What is necessary is that the injury must
(c) A disability is partial and permanent if as a be such that the employee cannot pursue his usual
result of the injury or sickness the employee suffers work and earn therefrom (Austria v. Court of
a permanent partial loss of the use of any part of Appeals, G.R. No. 146636, Aug. 12, 2002, 387 SCRA
his body. 216, 221). On the other hand, a total disability is
In Vicente v. ECC (G.R. No. 85024, January 23, 1991, considered permanent if it lasts continuously for
193 SCRA 190, 195): more than 120 days. Thus, in the very recent case
x x x the test of whether or not an employee suffers of Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad (G.R. No.
from permanent total disability is a showing of the 134028, December 17, 1999, 321 SCRA 268, 270-
capacity of the employee to continue performing 271), we held:
his work notwithstanding the disability he incurred. Permanent disability is inability of a worker to
Thus, if by reason of the injury or sickness he perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless
of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his 2002 his complaint to recover permanent total
body. x x x. disability compensation and despite the August 31,
Total disability, on the other hand, means the 2005 Decision of the NLRC which was affirmed by
disablement of an employee to earn wages in the the Court of Appeals, ordering respondents to
same kind of work of similar nature that he was allow complainant to resume sea duty.
trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any kind That petitioner was not likely to fully recover from
of work which a person of his mentality and his disability is mirrored by the Labor Arbiters
attainments could do. It does not mean absolute finding that his illness would possibly recur once he
helplessness. In disability compensation, it is not resumes his sea duties. Such finding could account
the injury which is compensated, but rather it is the why petitioner was not re-deployed by
incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of respondents.22Petitioners disability being then
ones earning capacity.21 (Emphasis and permanent and total, he is entitled to 100%
underscoring supplied) compensation, i.e., US$80,000 for officers, as
Applying the standards reflected in the stipulated in par. 20.1.7 of the parties
immediately quoted ruling of the Court vis--vis the CBA.23Petitioner, having been compelled to litigate
fact that it was only on November 16, 2001 that the due to respondents failure to satisfy his valid claim,
fit to work certification was issued by Dr. Cruz or is also entitled to attorneys fees of ten percent
more than five months from the time petitioner (10%) of the total award at its peso equivalent at
was medically repatriated on May 30, 2001, the time of actual payment, following prevailing
petitioners disability is considered permanent and jurisprudence.24
total. WHEREFORE, the March 8, 2007 Decision and
Significantly, it is gathered that petitioner remained September 14, 2007 Resolution of the Court of
unemployed even after he filed on February 26, Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 93332 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. Respondents are held jointly and
severally liable to pay petitioner 1) permanent total
disability benefits of US$80,000.00 at its peso
equivalent at the time of actual payment; and 2) * FIRST DIVISION.
attorneys fees of ten percent (10%) of the total 1 The Court, MCTC, has deleted the name
monetary award at its peso equivalent at the time National Labor Relations Commission (2nd
of actual payment. Division) as the main party impleaded in the
SO ORDERED. present Petition, in light of Section 4, Rule 45 of the
Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur. 2 Petitioner alleged that this was actually his re-
Judgment and resolution reversed and set aside. deployment; Petition, Rollo, p. 9.
Note.The correct criterion in determining 3 Id., at p. 47.
whether crew members of a vessel are entitled to 4 Court of Appeals Decision dated March 8, 2007,
overtime pay or night shift differential is not Id., at p. 39; Medical report dated June 6, 2001, Id.,
whether they were on board and cannot leave ship at p. 123.
beyond the regular eight working hours a day, but 5 Labor Arbiters Decision dated July 5, 2004, which
whether they actually rendered service in excess of was affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals;
said number of hours. (Dacut vs. Court of Appeals Id., at p. 160.
(Special Twelfth Division), 550 SCRA 260 [2008]) 6 Medical report dated June 6, 2001, Id., at p. 123.
o0o 7 Ibid.
8 Id., at pp. 59-60.
9 Medical Certificate dated February 22, 2002, Id.,
at p. 63.
10 Id., at pp. 64-65. 21 Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission,
11 Labor Arbiters Decision dated July 5, 2004, Id., supra note 19 at 207, 209-211.
at pp. 158-167. 22 See Philimare, Inc./Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd.
12 Respondents Position Paper, Id., at pp. 99-120. v. Suganob, supra note 20 at 448.
13 Petitioners Reply, Id., at pp. 124-128, 145-146. 23 Rollo, p. 52 (underscoring supplied); cited also in
14 Id., at pp. 164, 167. the Labor Arbiters Decision, Rollo, p. 165.
15 Penned by Commissioner Victoriano R. Calaycay 24 Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission,
and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. supra note 19 at 215.
Aquino and Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan. Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
16 Rollo, pp. 212-213. reserved.

17 Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-

Bernabe and concurred in by Associate Justices
Rodrigo V. Cosico and Lucas P. Bersamin (now a
member of the Supreme Court), Id., at p. 38-44.
18 Id., at p. 46.
19 Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution;
Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 159887, April 12, 2006, 487 SCRA 190, 206-
211; Austria v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 926, 933;
387 SCRA 216, 222 (2002).
20 Philimare, Inc./Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd. v.
Suganob, G.R. No. 168753, July 9, 2008, 557 SCRA
438, 448.