Notes And Discussions On Recent Cases For Labor Relations Law.docx

Notes and Discussions on Recent Cases for Labor Relations Law 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 companydesignated 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 conflictresolution 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.