This Petition for Review on Certiorari^[1] (Petition) filed by Rickmers Marine Agency Phils., Inc., Global Management Limited and/or George C. Guerrero (collectively, petitioners), assails the Decision^[2] dated December 2, 2014 (Assailed Decision) and Resolution^[3] dated October 1, 2015 (Assailed Resolution) of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 130065, which affirmed the Resolutions dated February 7, 2013 and March 15, 2013 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) granting permanent total disability benefits and attorney's fees to herein respondent Edmund R. San Jose (respondent).

The Facts

The facts, as summarized by the Labor Arbiter (LA) and adopted by the CA, are as follows:

Succinctly, the facts of this case show the Complainant Edmund R. San Jose was engaged by Respondent local manning agency Rickmers Marine Agency Phil. Inc. [and]/or George C. Guerrero for and in behalf of its foreign principal Global Management Limited, for deployment on board the vessel MV Maersk Edinburg under a nine (9) month Standard POEA Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen with a basic monthly salary of US$ 420.00 as a wiper. (Annex A, Complainant's Position Paper). Record also shows an addendum that provides for an additional US$ 40.00. Before deployment, Complainant underwent the necessary medical examinations and was declared fit for work. (Annexes C to F, Complainant's Position Paper). Thereafter, Complainant departed on June 28, 2010 to join his vessel on and assumed his post as a wiper/seaman.

Sometime in February 2011, Complainant upon waking complained of loss of/impaired vision in his left eye. His condition was then reported to the ship's captain and at the port of call in Singapore allowed for a medical examination of his left eye and prescribed eye drops. Even as his condition did not improve, Complainant continued with his journey and upon arrival in Le Havre, France, was seen by an ophthalmologist on February 28, 2011 who diagnosed him with retinal detachment/tear affecting the macula. (Annex G, Complainant's Position paper) and recommended for medical repatriation.

Upon arrival in Manila sometime in March 2011, Complainant was referred to the Respondent's designated physician, Dr. Natalio G. Alegre II of the Alegre Medical Clinic located at St. Luke's Hospital (Annex H, Complainant's Position Paper). Complainant was assessed to be suffering from rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with proliferative [vitreoretinopathy], lattice degeneration, myopia, OS,^[4] and was recommended for eye surgery to attach the retina. (Annex I, Complainant's Position paper). He underwent surgery and was confined for a period of three (3) days. (Annexes J and K, Complainant's Position Paper).

Since the procedure to attach a detached retina requires more than one (1) surgical operation, a second one was scheduled for September 2011. A medical certificate dated July 4, 2011 was then issued by the Respondents' designated physician that gave the Complainant a Partial Temporary Disability Rating (Annex L, Complainant's Position Paper). Respondents' designated physician thereafter gave him a "fit for work" rating on November 21, 2011 in so far as the cause of repatriation is concerned (Annex M, Complainant's Position Paper).

Even after undergoing more than one (1) eye surgery, the sight of the complainant in his left eye remains blurred if not impaired, thus he instituted this Complaint on February 14, 2012.^[5]

Findings of the LA and NLRC

In its Decision dated June 25, 2012, the LA ruled in favor of respondent and awarded him US$ 60,000.00 and attorneys' fees equivalent to 10% of the total award. The LA considered respondent's illness as compensable as it occurred onboard the vessel and during the effectivity of the employment contract. Furthermore, the LA reasoned that respondent had failed to resume his duties as a seafarer for more than 120 days; thus, entitling him to total permanent disability benefits.

Petitioners elevated the case to the NLRC. On February 7, 2013, the NLRC issued its Decision reversing the LA's ruling. The NLRC noted that the respondent's appointed physician did not state in the medical certificate any grading for which complainant should be compensated, neither did the company-designated physician. In fact, both the medical certifications/assessments from the two doctors stated that respondent was "fit to work." The NLRC held that petitioners were only liable for respondent's salaries during the unexpired portion of the employment contract of US$ 420.00 and financial assistance of P50,000.00. The NLRC denied respondent's motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated March 15, 2013.

Aggrieved, respondent elevated the case to the CA via petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

The CA Decision

In the Assailed Decision, the CA set aside the NLRC Decision and Resolution and reinstated the LA Decision. The CA held that respondent was able to prove his claim of total permanent disability benefits with substantial evidence. Furthermore, respondent had been unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days. The CA also affirmed the award of attorney's fees. In addition, the CA maintained the NLRC's award of US$ 420.00 representing unpaid salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract, and P50,000.00 financial assistance.

The Petition

Thus, petitioners elevated the case before the Court, averring that the CA committed reversible error in issuing the Assailed Decision. They argue that respondent's illness was not work-related, as he had already been certified by the company-designated physician as "fit to work" in a certification dated November 21, 2011. They also claim that the mere lapse of the 120/240-day period does not automatically entitle the seafarer to disability compensation. On the US$ 420.00 award, petitioners allege that respondent is not entitled thereto as he was medically repatriated, and he was already given his sickness allowance. They also argue that the financial assistance of P50,000.00 has no basis, and neither is respondent entitled to attorneys' fees.

Respondent filed his Comment^[6] to the Petition on April 12, 2016. He contends that he is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits because the company-designated physician did not issue any assessment within the 120/240-day period. Respondent was repatriated on March 3, 2011 and the medical assessment was issued only on November 21, 2011 or a total of 263 days. Thus, he is considered to be suffering from permanent total disability. Respondent also claims that rhegmatogenous retinal detachment is work-related; and that the illness befell him while he was onboard the vessel and during the term of the employment contract. Moreover, retinal detachment is listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-A (18) of the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration - Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). Respondent also quoted the 9^th Progress Report^[7] dated June 21, 2011 issued by the company-designated physician, which states: "x x x regarding the work relatedness of the retinal detachment, lifting of heavy objects caused the detachment on an elongated eye due to nearsightedness. The lifting of heavy objects provoked the retinal detachment." Lastly, respondent asserts that he is entitled to the US$ 420.00 award representing the unexpired portion of the contract, P50,000.00 financial assistance, and attorneys' fees.

Petitioners filed their Reply^[8] to the Comment on November 28, 2016, reiterating their positions, as stated in the Petition.

Issue

Whether respondent is entitled to total permanent disability benefits.

The Court's Ruling

Generally, only questions of law may be raised and resolved by the Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.^[9] However, when the findings of the courts or tribunals below are conflicting or contradictory, as in this case, the Court may review the facts to arrive at a fair and complete resolution of the case.^[10]

While the respective decisions of the LA, NLRC, and CA are contradictory, the significant dates in the case are not disputed: that respondent was medically repatriated and arrived in the Philippines on March 3, 2011. Respondent was examined by the company-designated physician and was diagnosed with "rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with proliferative vitreoretinopathy, lattice degeneration, myopia" in the left eye. Respondent's condition necessitated two operations on the affected eye, which he underwent on March 16, 2011 and September 18, 2011. On November 21, 2011, the company-designated physician issued a medical report declaring him "fit to work." On February 14, 2012, respondent instituted a complaint before the LA for total permanent disability benefits.

The resolution of this controversy lies in the determination of petitioners' compliance with the mandatory procedures and periods under the POEA-SEC, which is the contract and law between the parties. The cited 120/240-day periods can be found in the Labor Code and its implementing rules, as well as the POEA-SEC. Article 192(c)(l) of the Labor Code provides:

Art. 192. Permanent Total Disability. — x x x

x x x x

(c) The following disabilities shall be deemed total and permanent:

(1) Temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than one hundred twenty days, except as otherwise provided for in the Rules;

Section 2, Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation implementing Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code, states:

Sec. 2. Period of Entitlement. — (a) The income benefit shall be paid beginning on the first day of such disability. If caused by an injury or sickness it shall not be paid longer than 120 consecutive days except where such injury or sickness still requires medical attendance beyond 120 days but not to exceed 240 days from onset of disability in which case benefit for temporary total disability shall be paid. However, the System may declare the total and permanent status at any time after 120 days of continuous temporary total disability as may be warranted by the degree of actual loss or impairment of physical or mental functions as determined by the System.

Meanwhile, Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, provides:

3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.

For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.

Parsed, the above provisions may be condensed into the following guidelines:

1. The seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return. If physically incapacitated to do so, written notice to the agency within the same period shall be deemed compliance.^[11]

2. The seafarer shall cooperate with the company-designated physician on his medical treatment and regularly report for follow-up check­ups or procedures, as advised by the company-designated physician.

3. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within 120 days from repatriation. The period may be extended to 240 days if justifiable reason exists for its extension (e.g., seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative).

4. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days or the extended 240 days, as the case may be, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total.^[12]

On this note, it must be clarified that the lapse of the 120/240-day period alone does not automatically entitle the seafarer to total permanent disability compensation. In fact, the POEA-SEC itself provides that the disability shall be based on the schedule provided therein and not on the duration of the seafarer's treatment. Section 20(B)(6) thereof provides:

In case of permanent total or partial disability of the seafarer caused by either injury or illness the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance with the schedule of benefits enumerated in Section 32 of this contract. Computation of his benefits arising from an illness or disease shall be governed by the rates and the rules of compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease was contracted. (Emphasis supplied)

However, this presupposes that the company-designated physician issued a valid and timely assessment. Without the assessment, there will be no other basis for the disability rating. Thus, it is mandatory for company-designated physician to issue his assessment within the 120/240-day periods. Otherwise, the seafarer's illness shall be deemed total and permanent disability.

In the instant case, respondent was repatriated on March 3, 2011. He underwent the first eye operation on March 16, 2011 (13 days from repatriation). His next operation was performed on September 18, 2011 (or 199 days from repatriation). Justifiably, the extension of the 120-day period was in order as the respondent required further treatment.

However, the company-designated physician's assessment of fitness to work was issued only on November 21, 2011, which was 263 days from repatriation. Thus, the medical assessment of respondent was made beyond the maximum 240-day period prescribed under the POEA-SEC. As such, the disability of respondent is deemed total and permanent.

The Court ratiocinated in Vergara v. Hammonia^[13]:

[T]he seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the company-designated physician within three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis and treatment. For the duration of the treatment but in no case to exceed 120 days, the seaman is on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to work. He receives his basic wage during this period until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is defined under the POEA Standard Employment Contract and by applicable Philippine laws. If the 120 days initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists. x x x

x x x x

x x x [A] temporary total disability only becomes permanent when so declared by the company physician within the periods he is allowed to do so, or upon the expiration of the maximum 240-day medical treatment period without a declaration of either fitness to work or the existence of a permanent disability.^[14] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In other words, the seafarer's condition is considered to be temporary total disability for the duration of his treatment which shall have an initial maximum period of 120 days. If the seafarer requires further medical treatment, the period may be extended to 240 days. Within the said periods, the company-designated physician must assess and certify the seafarer's condition; that is, whether he is "fit to work" or if the seafarer's permanent disability has become partial or total.

However, if after the lapse of 240 days, the company-designated physician has not made any assessment at all (whether the seafarer is fit to work or whether his permanent disability is partial or total), it is only then that the conclusive presumption that the seafarer is totally and permanently disabled arises. Thus, in this case, respondent is entitled to the total and permanent disability compensation of US$ 60,000.00 because the company-designated physician failed to make an assessment within the 240-day period.

The CA was thus correct in reinstating the LA decision as regards the award of total and permanent disability compensation. However, the award of attorney's fees, salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract of US$ 420.00, and financial assistance of P50,000.00 is erroneous for having no basis.

Being compelled to litigate is not sufficient reason to grant attorney's fees. The Court has consistently held that attorney's fees cannot generally be recovered as part of damages based on the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to sue. Under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, factual, legal, and equitable grounds must be presented to justify an award for attorney's fees. Absent a showing of bad faith on the part of petitioners, the award of attorney's fees is deemed inappropriate.^[15]

The payment of salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract and financial assistance is also erroneous. The 2000 POEA-SEC mandates the responsibilities of the employer when the seafarer becomes ill or injured:

SECTION 20. x x x

x x x x

B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS

The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:

1. The employer shall continue to pay the seafarer his wages during the time he is on board the vessel;

2. If the injury or illness requires medical and/or dental treatment in a foreign port, the employer shall be liable for the full cost of such medical, serious dental, surgical and hospital treatment as well as board and lodging until the seafarer is declared fit to work or to be repatriated.

However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the employer until such time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the company-designated physician.

3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed 120 days. (Emphasis supplied)

As stated above, the employer shall be liable for salaries of an injured or ill seafarer only while the latter is onboard the vessel. However, the seafarer shall be entitled to a sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage computed from the time he signed off until he is declared fit to work or the degree of disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician. In this case, there is no dispute that petitioners paid respondent sickness allowance and covered the cost of his repatriation and medical treatment.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated December 2, 2014 and Resolution dated October 1, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 130065 are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.

The award of attorney's fees, salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract of US$ 420.00, and financial assistance of P50,000.00 is DELETED. Petitioners Rickmers Marine Agency, Phils., Inc., and Global Management Limited are DECLARED solidarily liable to pay respondent total permanent disability compensation in the amount of US$ 60,000.00, or its peso equivalent. Respondent is hereby DIRECTED to return to the petitioners any amount received in excess thereof.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson), Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe, and A. Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 36-87.

^[2] Id. at 88-101, penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, and concurred in by Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.

^[3] Id. at 142-147, penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, and concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.

^[4] "OS," abbreviation for "oculus sinister" or left eye. See Abbreviations Commonly Used in Opthalmology, available at (last accessed July 10, 2018).

^[5] Rollo, pp. 89-90.

^[6] Id. at 159-199.

^[7] Id. at 166.

^[8] Id. at 215-247.

^[9] RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Sec. 1.

^[10] Miro v. Mendoza, Vda. De Erederos, 721 Phil. 772, 786-787 (2013).

^[11] 2000 POEA-SEC, Sec. 20 (B)(3).

^[12] Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr., 765 Phil. 341, 363 (2015).

^[13] 588 Phil. 895 (2008).

^[14] Id. at 912-913.

^[15] Heirs of Dela Cruz v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., 758 Phil. 382, 401 (2015).