Compilation of Jurisprudence and Discussions Labor Relations;

PTD, DISMISSAL

BOOK 2: LABOR RELATIONS

 PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY

1. 120 day period, lapse thereof not conclusive

- Finally, in Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc. v. Osias, the

Court reaffirmed: (1) that mere inability to work for a
period of 120 days does not entitle a seafarer to
permanent and total disability benefits; (2) that the
determination of the fitness of a seafarer for sea duty is
within the province of the company-designated physician,
subject to the periods prescribed by law; (3) that the
company-designated physician has an initial 120 days to
determine the fitness or disability of the seafarer; and ( 4)
that the period of treatment may only be extended to 240
days if a sufficient justification exists such as when further
medical treatment is required or when the seafarer is
uncooperative.

2. Doctor’s findings > 120-day lapse

- It is the doctor's findings that should prevail as he or she is

equipped with the proper discernment, knowledge,
experience and expertise on what constitutes total or
partial disability. The physician's declaration serves as the
basis for the degree of disability that can range anywhere
from Grade 1 to Grade 14. Notably, this is a serious
consideration that cannot be determined by simply
counting the number of treatment lapsed days. 19
Accordingly, the timely medical assessment of a company-
designated physician is given great significance by the
Court to determine whether a seafarer is entitled to
disability benefits. Indeed, the mere inability of a seafarer
to work for a period of 120 days is not the sole basis to
determine a seafarer's disability.

3. Obligation of Employer; Lapse of 120 days; Justify

extension to 240 days, otherwise PERMANENT TOTAL
DISABILITY DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE

- But before the company-designated physician may avail of

the allowable 240-day extended treatment period, he must
 perform some significant act to justify the extension of the
original 120-day period. Otherwise, the law grants the
seafarer the relief of permanent total disability benefits
due to such non-compliance.

4. Total and permanent disability BY OPERATION OF LAW

- Case law states that without a valid final and definitive

assessment from the company-designated physician within
the 120/240-day period, the law already steps in to
consider petitioner's disability as total and permanent.
Thus, a temporary total disability becomes total and
permanent by operation of law.

5. Third doctor necessary in case of conflicting medical

findings

- More importantly, respondent never signified his intention

to resolve the disagreement with petitioners' company-
designated physicians by referring the matter to a third
doctor. It is only through the procedure provided by the
POEA-SEC, in which he was a party, can he question the
timely medical assessment of the company-designated
physician and compel the petitioners to jointly seek an
appropriate third doctor. Absent proper compliance, the
final medical report of the company-designated physician
must be upheld. Ergo, he is not entitled to permanent and
total disability benefits.

- PROVIDED that the company physician made an

assessment: It bears stressing that a seafarer's compliance
with the conflict-resolution procedure under the said
provision presupposes that the company-designated
physician came up with an assessment as to his fitness or
unfitness to work before the expiration of the 120-day or
240-day periods.

6. EMPLOYER: Diabetes as a non-work-related disease

- Diabetes mellitus is a metabolic and a familial disease to

which one is pre-disposed by reason of heredity, obesity or
old age. It does not indicate work-relatedness and by its
nature, is more the result of poor lifestyle choices and
health habits for which disability benefits are improper.
7. EMPLOYEE: Rectal Mass non-work related but
compensable, CONTRIBUTION, CONTRIBUTORY
sufficient

- We, thus, stress that in determining the compensability of

an illness, we do not require that the employment be the
sole factor in the growth, development, or acceleration of a
claimants' illness to entitle him to the benefits provided for.
It is enough that his employment contributed, even if only
in a small degree, to the development of the disease.

- Even assuming that the ailment of the worker was

contracted prior to his employment, this still would not
deprive him of compensation benefits. For what matters is
that his work had contributed, even in a small degree, to
the development of the disease. Neither is it necessary, in
order to recover compensation, that the employee must
have been in perfect health at the time he contracted the
disease. A worker brings with him possible infirmities in the
course of his employment, and while the employer is not
the insurer of the health of the employees, he takes them
as he finds them and assumes the risk of liability.

8. Seafarer? See POEA Standard Contract for Seafarers

9. PAO lawyer entitled to Attorney’s Fees!

- The costs of the suit, attorney's fees and contingent fees

imposed upon the adversary of the PAO clients after a
successful litigation shall be deposited in the National
Treasury as trust fund and shall be disbursed for special
allowances of authorized officials and lawyers of the P A0."
Indeed, petitioner is entitled to the award of attorney's fees
equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary
award. R.A. No. 9406 sanctions the receipt by the PAO of
attorney's fees, and provides that such fees shall constitute
a trust fund to be used for the special allowances of their
officials and lawyers. The matter of entitlement to
attorney's fees by a claimant who was represented by the
PAO has already been settled in Our Haus Realty
Development Corporation v. Parian. The Court ruled therein
that the employees are entitled to attorney's fees,
notwithstanding their availment of free legal services
offered by the PAO and the amount of attorney's fees shall
be awarded to the PAO as a token recompense to them for
 their provision of· free legal services to litigants who have
no means of hiring a private lawyer. gr_225803_2018

 Dismissal

1. Loss of trust and confidence

- proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. It would

already be sufficient that there is some basis for such loss
of confidence, such as when the employer has reasonable
ground to believe that the concerned employee is
responsible for the purported misconduct and the nature of
his participation therein. This distinguishes a managerial
employee from a fiduciary rank-and-file where loss of trust
and confidence, as ground for valid dismissal, requires
proof of involvement in the alleged events in question, and
that mere uncorroborated assertion and accusation by the
employer will not be sufficient.

- Actual Loss or Damage is NOT Necessary: It should be

noted, however, that the damage to the respondents or
whether or not the respondents were defrauded is not a
necessary element and consideration in determining
whether sufficient basis exists to justify the employee's
dismissal on grounds of serious misconduct or loss of trust.
To reiterate, the employer need only to entertain the moral
conviction or such reasonable grounds to believe, that the
employee is responsible for the misconduct and the nature
of the latter's participation renders him unworthy of the
trust and confidence demanded by the position; that the
act resulting in the loss of trust or the misconduct is
established by facts; and that the act or misconduct is
willfully made, i.e., the employee voluntarily and willfully
committed the act, although he may not have intended the
wrongful consequence. gr_219324_2018

- Employer good faith: Thus, for as long as the company's

exercise of judgment is in good faith to advance its interest
and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the
rights of employees under the laws or valid agreements,
such exercise will be upheld.

 Procedure
1. Technical Rules of Evidence NOT Binding

- contention that the accounting report . and email

correspondence are inadmissible as they were never
authenticated, verified or sworn to. First of all, technical
rules of evidence are. not binding in labor cases. Second of
all, Gaite never questioned the authentiCity/admissibility
thereof before the labor tribunals. Thus, any objection
thereto must be deemed waived.
-