Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES v. VS.FRANCISCO D. BESERIL

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 176884 2011-10-19	CARMELITO N. VALENZONA v. FAIR SHIPPING CORPORATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
We find no merit in respondents' contention that the company-designated physician's assessment that petitioner is fit to work makes him ineligible to claim permanent disability benefits.[66] This issue has already been raised, and rebuffed, in United Philippine Lines, Inc. v. Beseril.[67] Petitioners therein argued that "the provisions on disability benefits operate only upon certification by the company-designated physician that the claiming seafarer is indeed disabled, hence, respondent is not eligible for an award of disability benefits as 'he was certified fit for sea duty after the conduct of the last medical examination'".[68] However, this line of argument was resoundingly rebuffed by the Court, thus: But even in the absence of an official finding by the company-designated physicians that respondent is unfit for sea duty, respondent is deemed to have suffered permanent disability. Permanent disability is the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether he loses the use of any part of his body. It is undisputed that from the time respondent suffered a heart attack on December 5, 1997, he was unable to work for more than 120 days, his cardiac rehabilitation and physical therapy having ended only on May 28, 1998.
	GR No. 186289 2010-06-29	ORIENTAL SHIPMANAGEMENT CO. v. ROMY B. BASTOL VELASCO JR., J.
The foregoing concept of permanent disability has been consistently employed by the Court in subsequent cases involving seafarers, such as in Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad,[80] in which it was reiterated that permanent disability means the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days. Also in Philimare, Inc. v. Suganob,[81] notwithstanding the opinion of the company-designated physician that the seafarer therein was fit to work provided he regularly took his medication, the Court held that the latter suffered permanent disability in view of evidence that he had been unable to work as chief cook for more than 7 months. Similarly, in Micronesia Resources v. Cantomayor[82] and United Philippine Lines, Inc. and/or Holland America Line, Inc. v. Beseril,[83] the Court declared the seafarers therein to have suffered from a permanent disability after taking evidence into account that they had remained under treatment for more than 120 days, and were unable to work for the same period.
	GR No. 163838 2008-09-25	WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The foregoing concept of permanent disability has been consistently employed by the Court in subsequent cases involving seafarers, such as in Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad, in which it was reiterated that permanent disability means the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days.[31] Also in Philmare, Inc. v. Suganob,[32] notwithstanding the opinion of the company-designated physician that the seafarer therein was fit to work provided he regularly took his medication, the Court held that the latter suffered from permanent disability in view of evidence that he had been unable to work as chief cook for more than 7 months. Similarly, in Micronesia Resources v. Cantomayor[33] and United Philippine Lines, Inc. and/or Holland America Line, Inc. v. Beseril,[34] the Court declared the seafarers therein to have suffered from a permanent disability after taking evidence into account that they had remained under treatment for more than 120 days, and were unable to work for the same period.
	GR NO. 152273 2007-09-11	MARS C. PALISOC v. EASWAYS MARINE CARPIO, J.
Nevertheless, while the Court rejects the medical certificate issued by Dr. Rigonan, we note that the fit to work certification was issued by Dr. dela Cruz-de Leon only on 20 August 1997. Petitioner was repatriated on 23 March 1997. Petitioner was unable to perform his job for more than 120 days from the time of his repatriation, which entitles him to permanent disability benefits. Even in the absence of an official finding by a company-designated physician that petitioner is unfit for sea duty, he is deemed to have suffered permanent disability[21] because of his inability to work for more than 120 days. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner's operation involving the removal of his gallbladder is not a compensable injury, disease, or illness under Appendix 1 of the POEA-SEC. Permanent disability refers to the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether he loses the use of any part of his body.[22] What determines petitioner's entitlement to permanent disability benefits is his inability to work for more than 120 days.