FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between the private respondent, a radio officer on a vessel, and the petitioners, the vessel's owners. While the vessel was docked in New Zealand, the private respondent fell ill but was not allowed to disembark for immediate medical attention. Instead, the vessel proceeded to Manila, which took ten days. The private respondent's health deteriorated rapidly during the voyage. Upon arrival in Manila, he was made to wait for hours before being taken to the hospital. After being discharged, the private respondent demanded disability benefits and unpaid sickness wages, but the petitioners refused to provide any additional compensation. The private respondent filed a complaint with the NLRC seeking payment of disability benefits and the balance of his sickness wages.

The complainant, a seaman, filed a complaint against the respondent company for disability benefits and sickness wages. He was admitted to the hospital and declared partially permanently disabled. The respondents argued that the medical documents should not be given weight because the hospital or doctor was not duly accredited. The complainant argued that it is unreasonable to require an ailing seaman to wait until the ship lands in the country for treatment in an accredited hospital or doctor.

The evidence presented showed that the complainant is entitled to disability benefits, which were granted. The complainant was also entitled to sickness wages, but the respondents claimed they had already been paid without sufficient evidence. The complainant was granted the unpaid balance of the sickness wages. The NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter's decision, and the Court of Appeals upheld it with the modification of ordering the payment of exemplary damages to the private respondent.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the company-designated physician must be accredited with the POEA for purposes of determining compensation benefits under the Standard Employment Contract.

2. Whether the certificate issued by a non-accredited hospital declaring the seaman as suffering from a partial permanent disability should be decisive in the seaman's entitlement to disability benefits.

3. Whether the designated physician must be accredited by the POEA in order for the seaman to claim disability benefits.

4. Whether the act of committing the seaman for treatment at a specific hospital and paying the hospital bills is equivalent to company-designation of the physician.

5. Whether the medical certificate issued by the designated physician from the Manila Doctors Hospital can be given more weight than the one issued by another physician.

6. Whether the private respondent is entitled to disability benefits based on the severity of his head injury.

7. Whether the private respondent is entitled to the balance of the sickness wages.

8. Whether or not the petitioners are liable for moral damages for the physical suffering and mental anguish caused to the private respondent.

9. Whether or not the petitioners are liable for exemplary damages for acting with gross negligence.

10. Whether or not the award of attorney's fees is proper.

RULING:

1. The labor arbiter ruled that an ailing seaman need not have his condition assessed by a doctor or hospital accredited with the POEA for purposes of determining compensation benefits. The Court of Appeals also held that nothing in the Standard Employment Contract requires the company-designated physician or hospital to be accredited with the POEA. Therefore, private respondent is entitled to disability benefits even if the designated physician is not accredited with the POEA.

2. The Court of Appeals declared that the act of committing the seaman for treatment at a non-accredited hospital and paying his hospital bills there is equivalent to "company-designation." Thus, the certificate issued by the non-accredited hospital describing the seaman as suffering from a partial permanent disability should be construed as decisive in determining his entitlement to disability benefits.

3. The existence and grade of a seaman's disability does not require the physician to be accredited by the POEA. The only qualification is that the physician be "company-designated" as stated in the Standard Employment Contract. There is no provision requiring accreditation by the POEA.

4. The act of committing the seaman for treatment at a specific hospital and paying the hospital bills is equivalent to company-designation of the physician. By these acts, the hospital and its team of specialists are distinguished and set apart as the ones qualified to assess the seaman's disability.

5. The medical certificate issued by the designated physician from the Manila Doctors Hospital can be given more weight than the one issued by another physician. The specialists from the Manila Doctors Hospital had extensive knowledge and familiarity with the seaman's medical condition, enabling them to arrive at a more accurate appraisal of his disability.

6. The medical certificate provided by Dr. Domingo-Reyes, which diagnosed the private respondent with a "moderate mental disorder or moderate brain functional disturbance which limits worker to the activities of daily living with some directed care or attendance," is sufficient basis for the award of disability benefits in the amount of $25,000.00. The private respondent's condition falls under grade 6 disability as specified in Appendix 1-A.

7. The labor arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals all agreed that the evidence presented by the petitioners, specifically the check vouchers and "Sickwages Release & Quitclaim," were insufficient to prove that the entire amount of the sickness wages had been paid to the private respondent. Therefore, the private respondent is entitled to the balance of the sickness wages in the amount of $1,537.00.

8. Yes, the petitioners are liable for moral damages. The failure of the petitioners to provide the necessary medical care to the private respondent, causing his condition to worsen and resulting in a permanent disability, constitutes negligence. The Court considered an amount of P50,000.00 as proper for moral damages.

9. Yes, the petitioners are liable for exemplary damages. The appellate court found that the negligence of the petitioners in refusing to commit the ailing private respondent to a hospital deliberately caused the deterioration of his health and permanent partial disability. Exemplary damages are awarded to serve as a deterrent against socially deleterious actions. The appellate court's award of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages is sufficient.

10. No, the award of attorney's fees is not proper. The basis for the award was not discussed in the labor arbiter's decision and was not supported by the records. There must always be a factual basis for the award of attorney's fees.

PRINCIPLES:

• The liability of the employer for injury or illness suffered by a seaman during the term of his contract includes the payment of medical, dental, surgical, and hospital treatment costs until the seaman is declared fit to work or repatriated.

• If the seaman still requires medical attention after repatriation, the employer is responsible for providing such medical attention at cost until the seaman is declared fit or the degree of his disability is established by the company-designated physician.

• The company-designated physician need not be accredited with the POEA for the purpose of determining compensation benefits under the Standard Employment Contract.

• The act of committing the seaman for treatment at a non-accredited hospital and paying his hospital bills there can be considered as "company-designation" for the purpose of determining entitlement to disability benefits.

• The literal meaning of the stipulations in a contract shall control when the terms are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties.

• The term "designate" means to specify, mark out, make known, identify by name, indicate, show, distinguish by mark or description, or set apart for a purpose or duty.

• The findings of fact of the NLRC, when supported by substantial evidence and not tainted with grave abuse of discretion, are accorded respect and finality by the Supreme Court.

• Quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC have acquired expertise in specific matters within their jurisdiction, and their factual findings are generally conclusive.

• Liability for moral damages arises when there is physical suffering and mental anguish caused to a person due to negligence.

• Exemplary damages may be awarded to serve as a deterrent against socially deleterious actions.

• The award of attorney's fees must have a factual basis and should not be granted as a premium on the right to litigate.