Wilfredo Y. Antiquina v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and/or Masterbulk Pte., Ltd., G.R. No. 168922 (Case Digest)

 

●     Wilfredo Y. Antiquina v.  Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and/or Masterbulk Pte., Ltd., G.R. No. 168922. April 13, 2011

Facts:

                Wilfredo Y. Antiquina was hired, through respondent manning agency Magsaysay Maritime Corporation (MMC), to serve as Third Engineer on the vessel, M/T Star Langanger, which was owned and operated by respondent Masterbulk Pte., Ltd. (Masterbulk). According to petitioner’s contract of employment. During a routine maintenance of the vessel’s H.F.O Purifier #1, petitioner suffered a fracture on his lower left arm after a part fell down on him. petitioner was diagnosed with "fractura 1/3 proximala cubitus stg." as shown by the medical certificate issued by the attending physician and his arm was put in a cast.

            Petitioner was repatriated to the Philippines and mmediately reported to the office of MMC on October 4, 2000 and was referred to Dr. Robert Lim. Dr. Lim subsequently issued a medical report confirming that petitioner has an undisplaced fracture of the left ulna. Another company designated doctor, Dr. Tiong Sam Lim, evaluated petitioner’s condition and advised that petitioner undergo a bone grafting procedure whereby a piece of metal would be attached to the fractured bone. Upon learning from Dr. Tiong Sam Lim that the metal piece will only be removed from his arm after one and a half years, petitioner allegedly reacted with fear and decided not to have the operation. Petitioner filed a complaint for permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, damages and attorney’s fees against herein respondents.

            Respondents contended that petitioner’s monetary claims were premature by reason of the latter’s refusal to undergo the operation recommended by the company designated physician.

            Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner and awarded him the amount of US$3,614.00 as sickness allowance; US$80,000.00 "representing [his] permanent medical unfitness benefits under the pertinent provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement"; and attorney’s fees. The NLRC dismissed respondents’ appeal in a Decision and denied their (respondent) motion for reconsideration.

                Undeterred, respondents filed a petition for certiorari with CA. Court of Appeals held that: “Although said evidence were filed for the first time on appeal, it would have been prudent upon the NLRC to look into them since it was not bound by the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity. In fact, labor officials are mandated by Article 221 of the Labor Code to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.”  CA hold that the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion when it affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision awarding [petitioner] US$80,000.00 as medical unfitness benefit, despite the fact that such claim was unsubstantiated by any documentary evidence.

            In his motion for reconsideration of the above Decision of the Court of Appeals, petitioner claimed that it was only by inadvertence that he previously failed to attach a copy of the CBA. Attached as annexes to his motion were: (a) a purported copy of the CBA (Masterbulk Vessels Maritime Officers Agreement 1999) which allegedly entitled him to US$110,000.00 in disability benefits (an amount even higher than the Labor Arbiter’s award of US$80,000.00); and (b) a copy of his monthly contributions as union member during the period that he was employed by respondents. Thus, he prayed that the Court of Appeals reconsider its May 31, 2005 Decision and award him the higher amount of US$110,000.00 in disability benefits in accordance with the Masterbulk Vessels Maritime Officers Agreement 1999.  Respondents objected to the annexes of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on the grounds that his belated filing violated their right to due process and that the list of monthly contributions he presented did not prove he was a member of AMOSUP since the said list did not contain any validation/signature of an AMOSUP officer. Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration

 

Issues:

                Whether or not CA committed grave error in NOT admitting and considering the evidence submitted by petitioner (as to his membership of the Union).

                Whether or not CA was clearly biased in favor of the respondents such that it showed liberality to the latter but strictly applied the rules against petitioner.

 

 

Held:

                YES. The Court finds merit in petitioner’s contention that it would be more in keeping with the interest of fairness and substantial justice for the Court of Appeals to likewise admit and review petitioner’s evidence despite being submitted only on appeal. There appears to be no justification for relaxing the rules of procedure in favor of the employer and not taking the same action in the case of the employee, particularly in light of the principle that technical rules of procedure shall be liberally construed in favor of the working class in accordance with the demands of substantial justice. “Rules of procedure and evidence should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense in labor cases in order that technicalities would not stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties."

            In line with the objective of dispensing substantial justice, this Court has examined the evidence belatedly submitted by petitioner to the Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, even with this procedural concession in favor of petitioner, we do not find any sufficient basis to overturn the Court of Appeals’ May 31, 2005 Decision on the merits.

            Although petitioner was able to submit to the Court of Appeals copies of his identification card as an AMOSUP member and a certification from AMOSUP’s Legal Department that he was a member of said union during the period of his employment on the M/T Star Langanger, he still failed to present any copy of respondents’ supposed CBA with AMOSUP. What petitioner belatedly presented on appeal appears to be a CBA between respondent Masterbulk and the Singapore Maritime Officers’ Union, not AMOSUP.

At the outset, it should be noted that the resolution of the foregoing issues entails a review of the facts of the case which ordinarily would not be allowed in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. As a rule, only questions of law, not questions of fact, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

            However, this principle is subject to recognized exceptions. In the labor law setting, the Court will delve into factual issues when conflict of factual findings exists among the labor arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals. Considering that in the present case there were differing factual findings on the part of the Court of Appeals, on one hand, and the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, on the other, there is a need to make our own assiduous evaluation of the evidence on record.