22 Maunlad Trans VS Camoral PDF

Preview

Summary

digest...

Description

22.) Maunlad Trans. Inc/Carnival Cruise Lines & Castro vs. Camoral G.R. No. 211454 (Feb. 11 2015) URMENETA (Book 2 – Recruitment and Placement Activities) FACTS: 







Camoral, an 18-year employee of Carnival Cruise Lines through its local agent Maunlad Tans. Inc. was employed as an ice carver in the ship M/S Carnival Sensation for a period of eight months starting April 2009, where his duties included carrying blocks of ice, and working with heavy equipment at sub-zero temperatures inside the freezer. One day in September 2009, he felt intense pain in his neck and upper extremities which caused him to fall to the floor. He was later diagnosed with Cervical Disc Herniation and Radiculopathy and was declared unfit for duty by a company doctor in the US. He then underwent surgery and therapy for 5 months, wherein his condition barely improved. His personal doctor then further confirmed that Camoral was unfit for work in sea duty in any capacity (total and permanent disability). Camoral then sued the petitioners Maunlad/Carnival Cruise Lines before the Labor Arbiter (LA) due to failure by the latter to give Camoral the proper financial assistance and total disability benefits, citing POEA Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on board Ocean-going Vessels (POEA SEC) However, petitioners argued that Camoral was not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits as he was not suffering from “Grade 1” disability (total and permanent disability), only “Grade 10” under the POEA SEC, based on the report of the petitioner’s other company doctors. The LA then rendered a decision siding with Camoral. The petitioners appealed to the NLRC, however it affirmed the decision of the LA. The petitioners then appealed to the CA, who also ruled in favor of of Camoral, citing Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code expressly granting to Camoral total permanent disability.

ISSUE: WON Petitioners erred in not granting Camoral further financial assistance and total disability benfits due to Camoral’s work-related injury (YES) RULING: “x x x according to Kestrel Shipping vs. Munar, while the seafarer is partially injured or disabled, he must not be precluded from earning doing the same work he had before his injury or disability or that he is accustomed or trained to do. Otherwise, if his illness or injury prevents him from engaging in gainful employment for more than 120 days or 240 days, as is the case here, then he shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled. In Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad, the Court specifically ruled that it is of no consequence that he recovered, for what is important is that he was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days, and this constitutes permanent total disability x x x Significantly, the NLRC noted that the medical report and disability assessment submitted by the petitioners after more than 120 days of treatment and rehabilitation did not show how the partial permanent disability assessment of Camoral was arrived at. It simply stated that he was

suffering from impediment Grade 10 disability, but without any evidence that in fact only one-third limitation of motion of the neck or moderate stiffness had affected Camoral. But even without this observation, it is not disputed that Camoral has been declared unfit by both the petitioners’ and Camoral’s doctors to return to his previous occupation. This, to the Court, is akin to a declaration of permanent and total disability.”...