THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 227655. April 27, 2022.]

SKANFIL MARITIME SERVICES, INC., and/or CROWN

SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC., and/or JOSE MARIO C. BUNAG ,
petitioners, vs. ALMARIO M. CENTENO, respondent.

DECISION

M.V. LOPEZ, J : p

The Court resolves the petition by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, where Skanfil Maritime Services, Inc. (Skanfil), Crown
Shipmanagement, Inc., and Jose Mario C. Bunag, 1 dated July 27, 2016, and
Resolution 2 dated October 14, 2016, in CA-G.R. SP No. 144697. The assailed
CA issuances awarded permanent disability benefits and damages 3 in favor
of Almario M. Centeno (Almario).
In March 2013, Skanfil, on behalf of its foreign principal Crown
Shipmanagement, Inc., hired Almario as a mess person on board M/V "DIMI"
POS TOPAS . On September 26, 2013, Almario fell from a seven-step ladder
while performing the job. Almario lost consciousness and profusely bled at
the back of the head. The crew administered first aid and brought Almario to
a hospital in Japan. Thereat, Almario underwent an x-ray and a computed
tomography scan. Almario was diagnosed with a blunt head injury, blunt
back injury, lacerated scalp wound, and brain concussion. On October 2,
2013, Almario was repatriated to the Philippines. 4
Skanfil referred Almario to the company-designated physicians, Dr.
Hiyasmine Mangubat (Dr. Mangubat), Dr. Karen Frances Hao-Quan (Dr. Hao-
Quan), Dr. Robert D. Lim, and Dr. Edwin Agsoay of the Marine Medical
Services. The physicians assessed Almario's injury as "S/P Suturing of
Lacerated Wound on the Scalp, Fracture S3; Mild L3-L4 Disc Bulge ." Almario
was also referred to, and treated by Dr. William Chuasuan, Jr. (Dr.
Chuasuan), an orthopedic surgeon, and Dr. Wilson G. Sumpio (Dr. Sumpio), a
neurosurgeon. During the periodic medical evaluations, Dr. Hao-Quan
observed Almario's recurring pain in the lower hip area. The company doctor
recommended that Almario continue with the rehabilitation and medications.
Almario was also advised to return for another test and re-evaluation later. 5
Meantime, Dr. Hao-Quan issued an interim assessment of Grade 8 — loss of
2/3 lifting power of the trunk. 6 After weeks of treatment and rehabilitation,
Dr. Chuasuan cleared Almario orthopedic-wise, and subsequently, by Dr.
Sumpio from a neurosurgery standpoint. On February 7, 2014, Almario
returned to the company designated physician, where Dr. Hao-Quan finally
observed Almario's "functional trunk and hips range motion." The company
doctor also noted that Almario has no further subjective complaints. On even
date, Almario signed a Certificate of Fitness for Work, stating that Almario
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 was "fit for duty." 7 Dr. Hao-Quan also signed the certificate as a witness. 8
Unconvinced, Almario consulted Dr. Manuel Fidel M. Magtira (Dr.
Magtira) from the Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology at
the Armed Forces of the Philippines Medical Center. Dr. Magtira declared
that Almario lost pre-injury capacity and is permanently unfit to resume sea
duties. On July 14, 2014, Almario filed a complaint against Skanfil for
permanent disability benefits. 9
Decision of the Labor Arbiter
On July 31, 2015, the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Almario's complaint
for lack of merit. The LA noted that Almario's claim is premature. Almario
failed to observe the mandatory third doctor appointment rule, given the
conflicting findings of the company-designated physicians and Almario's
physician of choice. The LA explained that Dr. Magtira's medical report could
not be considered as an accurate assessment of Almario's illness since
Almario was only examined once on June 16, 2014, or almost eight months
after Almario's repatriation, and was unsupported by diagnostic tests and
procedures. 10 The LA found the results of the medical examinations
conducted by the company-designated physicians more credible and
plausible. The LA noted that the company-designated physicians properly
conducted Almario's medical examinations and had personal knowledge of
the medical condition since they closely monitored and checked Almario's
progress, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint
against the respondents is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. CAIHTE

SO ORDERED. 11 (Emphases supplied.)

Ruling of the NLRC
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in its
Decision 12 dated November 16, 2015 in NLRC NCR Case No. (M) 07-08710-
14 and NLRC LAC No. (OFW-M) 09-000786-15 affirmed the LA's findings. The
NLRC stressed that the company-designated physicians were more qualified
to assess Almario's medical condition and fitness to work since they possess
personal knowledge of Almario's actual condition. Also, the company-
designated physicians thoroughly examined and treated Almario from the
time of the repatriation until Almario was cleared by both the neurosurgeon
and the orthopedic surgeon. As opposed to Dr. Magtira, the company-
designated physicians were better positioned to give a more accurate
prognosis of Almario's injury. 13 The NLRC also ruled that Almario's claim of
compensability under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) must be
rejected. The CBA titled "ITF and Bremer Bereederungsgesellschaft mbH &
Co. KG," which Almario submitted before the LA, does not indicate that it
applied to the crew of M/V "DIMI" POS TOPAS. 14 Almario sought
reconsideration but was denied.
Findings of the CA
Almario elevated the case to the CA, insisting that the NLRC acted with
grave abuse of discretion in affirming the LA's decision based on doubtful,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 vague, and highly questionable assessments of the company-designated
physicians. Almario averred that one of the company-designated physicians,
Dr. Ramon Antonio Sarmiento (Dr. Sarmiento), a rehabilitation medicine
specialist, declared that Almario was unfit to work and was advised to
continue the therapy even after three months of initial physical therapy. 15
On July 27, 2016, the CA reversed the findings of the NLRC and the LA.
The CA gave credence to Almario's claim that Dr. Sarmiento was a company-
designated physician. Dr. Sarmiento issued an "unfit to work" certification
eight days after Dr. Hao-Quan issued the 10th and Final Report. Based on Dr.
Sarmiento's recommendations, Almario should continue the physical therapy
sessions. 16 Consequently, there were no final and definitive assessments
from the company-designated physicians.
Further, Dr. Sarmiento's assessment should prevail since it was the
more recent declaration. The medical assessment of a third doctor was
unnecessary because there were no inconsistencies between the findings of
Dr. Sarmiento as a company-designated physician and Dr. Magtira as
Almario's chosen physician. Almario's disability should be considered total
and permanent because the company-designated physicians did not issue a
definitive assessment within the prescribed period. The CA awarded
permanent total disability benefits based on the CBA, moral and exemplary
damages, and attorney's fees:
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED and the Decision
dated November 16, 2015 and Resolution dated December 28, 2015.
NULLIFIED. Private respondents Skanfil Maritime Services, Inc.,
CROWN SHIPMANAGEMENT[,] INC., and JOSE MARIO BUNAG are
ordered to jointly and solidarily pay petitioner:
1. US$125,000.00, as permanent disability benefits;
2. [P]30,000.00, as moral damages;
3. [P]50,000.00, as exemplary damages; and
4. 10% of the total judgment award, as attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED. 17 (Emphases in the original.)
Unsuccessful at a reconsideration, Skanfil elevated the case to the
Court. Skanfil claims that Dr. Sarmiento is not a company-designated
physician. Thus, the CA erred in reversing the factual findings of the NLRC
and the LA based on the medical certification issued by Dr. Sarmiento.
Further, the company-designated physicians, Dr. Hao-Quan and Dr. Lim, did
not refer Almario to Dr. Sarmiento. 18 The CA also erred in awarding
disability benefits under an alleged CBA because Skanfil was not a party to
the alleged CBA. The CBA was between ITF and Bremer
Bereederungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG. Besides, Almario failed to prove
that the CBA applies in the case. 19
In a comment, 20 Almario insists that the company-designated
physician never declared a "fit to work" assessment. The 10th and Final
Report was vague on whether Almario could resume the work as a seafarer.
21 Almario's clearance from the orthopedic's standpoint is unclear whether

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 Almario can resume the duties as a mess person which entails strenuous
work. 22 Almario maintains that even after the report was issued, Dr.
Sarmiento found him unfit to work and was advised to continue the physical
therapy after three months of initial physical therapy. Since there was no
definite assessment of Almario's fitness to work from the company-
designated physicians, Almario is deemed totally and permanently disabled.
The CA correctly ruled that there is no need to refer the case to a third
doctor because there were no inconsistencies with the findings of Dr.
Sarmiento and Dr. Magtira. Moreover, the Certificate of Fitness for Work is a
quitclaim and should not be considered binding. Almario, as a seafarer, is in
no position to agree or certify on medical matters. 23
In its reply, 24 Skanfil countered that it was able to prove that Dr.
Sarmiento is not a company-designated physician. Skanfil asserts that the
10th and Final Report issued by Dr. Hao-Quan is a final and definitive
assessment of Almario's fitness. The neurosurgeon and the orthopedic
surgeon who rendered medical services for Almario's specific illness/injury
are expected to keep within their bounds, and to the illness that was referred
to them for treatment. DETACa

ISSUES
The issues may be summarized as follows:
1) Whether Almario is entitled to permanent total disability benefits,
moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees; and
2) Whether the CBA provision awarding a higher amount of
disability benefits is applicable.
RULING
Prefatorily, the Court stresses that the CA may review NLRC decisions
only through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack, or
excess of jurisdiction. The review is limited to whether the NLRC acted
arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously, and does not entail looking into the
correctness of the judgment on the merits. Necessarily, when the case is
elevated to the Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45, the contentious issue would be a question of law whether the NLRC acted
with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its judgment. 25 In essence, the
Court is tasked to determine whether the CA correctly found grave abuse of
discretion when the NLRC ruled that Almario was not entitled to the claim for
permanent disability benefits.
The Court finds the petition partly meritorious.
The company-
designated physicians failed to
issue a valid medical assessment
within 120 days from Almario's
repatriation. Consequently,
Almario's disability is
considered permanent and total.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 The seafarer's entitlement to disability benefits is governed by the law,
the parties' contracts, and the medical findings. 26 Under Section 20 (A) of
the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard
Employment Contract (2010 POEA-SEC), the employer must compensate the
seafarer for work-related injuries and illnesses subject to conditions. The
seafarer must timely report to the company-designated physician upon
repatriation. In contrast, the company-designated physician must determine
whether the seafarer is fit to work, or the degree of disability has been
evaluated. The 2010 POEA-SEC also provides the conflict resolution
mechanism if the seafarer disagrees with the findings of the company-
designated physicians:
SEC. 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS. —
A. 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:
xxx xxx xxx
3. In addition to the above obligation of the employer to
provide medical attention, the seafarer shall also receive sickness
allowance from his employer in an amount 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. The period within which the seafarer shall be
entitled to his sickness allowance shall be made on a regular basis,
but not less than once a month.
xxx xxx xxx
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. In the
course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the
company-designated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed
by the company-designated physician and agreed to by the seafarer.
Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting
requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the
above benefits.
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the
assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the
Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final
and binding on both parties.
xxx xxx xxx
6. In case of permanent total or partial disability of the
seafarer caused by either in injury or illness the seafarer shall be
compensated in accordance with the schedule of benefits
enumerated in Section 32 of his 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. aDSIHc

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 xxx xxx xxx
I n Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr. , 27 the Court
summarized the rules on the prescribed period for the company-designated
physician to issue a final medical assessment and the consequence for
failure to observe these periods:
1. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical
assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of
120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;
2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment
within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then
the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total;
3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment
within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification ( e.g.,
seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was
uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall
be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove
that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification
to extend the period; and
4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his
assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the
seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of
any justification. 28
I n Pastrana v. Bahia Shipping Services , 29 the Court clarified that the
120 days must be reckoned "from the date of the seafarer's repatriation." 30
I n Razonable v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc., 31 the Court reiterated
that the medical assessment must be final, conclusive, and definite. The
assessment must clearly state whether the seafarer is fit to work, or the
exact disability rating, or whether such illness is work-related and without
any further condition or treatment. It should no longer require any further
action on the part of the company-designated physician, and it is issued by
the company-designated physician after he or she has exhausted all possible
treatment options within the periods allowed by law. 32 In Ampo-on v. Reinier
Pacific International Shipping, Inc. , 33 the Court held that a medical
assessment that is not complete and definite must be ignored. The seafarer
has nothing to contest in the absence of a final and valid medical
assessment. The conflict resolution mechanism of referring the findings of
the company-designated physician to the seafarer's physician of choice is
unnecessary. 34
Here, Almario was medically repatriated on October 2, 2013, and
submitted for post-medical examination by the company-designated
physicians. Dr. Hao-Quan and Dr. Lim initially examined Almario, 35 and
referred him to other specialists to address the specific concerns. Almario
was referred to Dr. Sumpio (neurosurgeon), and Dr. Chuasuan (orthopedic
surgeon), because Almario sustained head and back injuries. 36 The
specialists treated Almario, prescribed medications, and assisted in the
rehabilitation. Following the cases of Elburg and Pastrana, the company-
designated physicians must issue a final and valid medical assessment
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 within 120 days reckoned from October 2, 2013, or the date when Almario
was repatriated. The company-designated physicians had until January 30,
2014, to issue the assessment unless there was a justifiable reason to
extend the period. Otherwise, Almario's disability must be deemed
permanent and total.
The 10th and Final Report was issued on February 7, 2014, or eight
days beyond the prescribed period. However, the company-designated
physicians failed to justify why the assessment must be issued beyond 120
days. Senior Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe and Associate Justice
Marvic M.V.F. Leonen aptly observed that the company-designated
physicians failed to explain in detail the progress of Almario's treatment and
approximate recovery period warranting further medical treatment beyond
the 120-day prescribed period. Thus, the 10th and Final Report beyond 120
days is unjustified. Following Elburg, Almario's disability is deemed
permanent and total upon the lapse of 120 days. Article 198 (c) (1) of the
Labor Code becomes operative: 37
Article 198. Permanent Total Disability. — x x x
xxx xxx xxx
(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;
Moreover, the 10th and Final Report is not final and valid medical
assessment. It did not categorically state that Almario is fit to work. The
report states:
This is a follow-up report on [Mess person] Almario M. Centeno
who was initially seen here at Marine Medical Services on October 8,
2013[,] and was diagnosed to have S/P Suturing of Lacerated Wound
on the Scalp; Fracture, 3rd Sacrum; Mild L3-L4 Disc Bulge.
He was previously cleared by the Neurosurgeon.
He was seen by the Orthopedic Surgeon today.
Patient has no subjective complaints at present.
There is note of functional trunk and hips range of motion.
The specialist opines that patient is now cleared orthopedic
wise effective as of February 7, 2014.
He was advised proper back mechanics to prevent/minimize
recurrence of his back pain.
Enclosed are the comments of the specialists.
Final Diagnosis — S/P Suturing of Lacerated Wound on the
Scalp.
Fracture, 3rd Sacrum
Mild L3-L4 Disc Bulge
Very Truly Yours,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 (Sgd.)
Karen Frances Hao-Quan, M.D.
Asst. Medical Coordinator 38
10th and Final Report
As can be gleaned from the report, the company-designated physician
did not categorically state that Almario was fit to work after the treatment.
Instead, it contains advice for "proper back mechanics to prevent/minimize
recurrence of his back pain," which suggests that Almario's back pain was
not fully resolved. Generic statements on Almario's condition, such as
"[Almario] was previously cleared" and "patient is now cleared orthopedic
wise," did not make the assessment definitive.
In Lemoncito v. BSM Crew Service Centre Philippines, Inc., 39 a medical
assessment stating that the "petitioner's blood pressure is adequately
controlled with medications," and "patient is now cleared cardiac wise," is
considered too generic and equivocal on whether the seafarer has a clean
bill of health. A medical assessment that does not reflect the true extent of
the seafarer's sickness or injury and their capacity to resume work is
incomplete and indefinite. 40 This type of assessment must be ignored and
set aside. 41 ETHIDa

Moreover, the Certificate of Fitness for Work is not conclusive on

Almario's state of health. The certificate was executed by Almario, a seafarer
who has no expertise in the medical field. The certificate stating that Almario
is "fit for duty" should have been executed by the company-designated
physician. Dr. Hao-Quan's signature on the certificate was in capacity as a
witness, and not as a doctor. The certificate is reproduced as follows:
CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS FOR WORK
I, Almario M. Centeno, for myself and my heirs, do hereby
release Skanfil Maritime Svs., Inc. of all actions, claims, demands,
etc., in connection with being released on this date as fit for duty.
In recognizing this Certificate of Fitness for Work, I hold x x x
Skanfil Maritime Svs., Inc. free from all liabilities as consequence
thereof.
Finally, I hereby declare that this Certificate of Fitness for Work
may be pleaded in bar [of] any proceedings of the law that may be
taken by any government agency, and I do promise to defend the
right of x x x Skanfil Maritime Svs., Inc. x x x in connection with this
Certificate of Fitness for Work.
Witness my hand this 7th day of February 2014 in the City of
Manila, Philippines.
(Sgd.)
Almario M. Centeno
Name of Vessel: Pos Topas
Nature of Illness or Injury:
S/P Suturing of Lacerated Wound on Scalp;
Fracture, 3rd Sacrum; Mild L3-L4 Disc Bulge
Date of Fit to Work: February 7, 2014
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 (Sgd.)
Witness: Karen Frances Hao-Quan, M.D., Marine Medical Services
[Ako], Almario M. Centeno, [ay nagsasaad na ang bahagi ng
salaysay na ito ay aking nabasa at ang nasabi ay naipaliwanag sa
akin sa salitang aking naintindihan. Ito pa rin ay katunayan na ang
aking pagsangayon sa nasabi ay aking sarili at kusang kagustuhan, at
hindi bunga ng anumang pangako, pagkukunwari o pagpilit ng
sinumang may kinalaman sa mga nasasaad na usapin].
[Katunayan, aking nilagdaan ang pagpapahayag nitong ika-7 ng
Pebrero 2014 sa] Manila.
(Sgd.)
Almario M. Centeno 42

Verily, the 10th and Final Report and the Certificate of Fitness for Work
are not final and valid assessments. They are incomplete and not definitive
of Almario's state of health and capacity to resume work. Most importantly,
they were issued beyond the prescribed period. Consequently, Almario's
disability is considered permanent and total. Almario was not even required
to refer the company-designated physician's findings to his chosen physician
because there is no medical assessment to contest. Thus, it is unnecessary
to discuss whether Dr. Sarmiento was among the company-designated
physicians, and talk about the value of Dr. Sarmiento's medical findings.
The amount of disability
benefits based on the
CBA is applicable.
The CA found that the CBA provisions are applicable:
As for petitioner's coverage under the CBA between "ITF and
Bremer Bereederungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG[,]" the same is
undisputed. The Occurrence Report dated September 27, 2013
pertaining to petitioner's injury on board was written, signed, and
submitted by Capt. M. Martynenko of M/V POS TOPAS using the
header, "BBG-Bereederungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG[,]" the party
representing private respondents in their CBA with the [seafarer]
concerned, including petitioner. 43 x x x. (Citation omitted.)
xxx xxx xxx
Skanfil argues that it is not a party to the CBA, and is not bound by its
provisions. The CBA is between ITF and Bremer Bereederungsgesellschaft
mbH & Co. KG. The Court is unconvinced. The CA categorically found that
Skanfil and Crown Shipmanagement, Inc. are represented by Bremer
Bereederungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG in the CBA with the seafarers, but
Skanfil did not deny this finding. Skanfil did not address the CA's observation
that the captain of M/V POS TOPAS used the header of BBG-
Bereederungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, and whether the captain merely
erred in using the header. The use of the header belies Skanfil's claim that
the CBA does not bind it. cSEDTC

The awards for moral and

exemplary damages
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 should be deleted, but the
attorney's fees should be
retained.
In Chan v. Magsaysay Corporation, 44 the Court explained the nature of
moral and exemplary damages:
Moral damages are awarded as compensation for actual injury
suffered and not as a penalty. The award is proper when the
employer's action was attended by bad faith or fraud, oppressive to
labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or
public policy. Bad faith is not simply bad judgment or negligence. It
imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious
doing of wrong. It means a breach of a known duty through some
motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.
Exemplary damages, on the other hand are imposed not to
enrich one party or impoverish another but to serve as a deterrent
against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions,
and may only be awarded in addition to the moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages. In contracts and quasi-
contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant
acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent
manner. 45 (Citations omitted.)
Here, the CA awarded moral damages because of the alleged refusal of
Skanfil to pay the disability benefits despite Dr. Sarmiento's certification that
Almario is unfit for work. However, it is insufficient to conclude whether
Skanfil's actions are tainted with bad faith that would partake the nature of
fraud. Here, Skanfil never evaded its liability of providing medical attention.
Almario was referred to a neurosurgeon and an orthopedic surgeon to
address his medical condition. What is clear here is a difference of opinion
on the status of Almario's medical condition and Skanfil's failure to issue a
timely and valid medical assessment. In the absence of substantial evidence
showing malice or bad faith in refusing the seafarer's claim for disability
benefits, moral and exemplary damages should not be awarded. 46
However, the award of attorney's fees is proper. Article 2208 (8) of the
Civil Code provides that attorney's fees may be recovered "[i]n actions for
indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws." 47
Following Nacar v. Gallery Frames , 48 a legal interest of (6%) per
annum is imposed on the total monetary awards until complete payment.
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals'
Decision dated July 27, 2016, and Resolution dated October 14, 2016, in CA-
G.R. SP No. 144697 are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Skanfil Maritime
Services, Inc., Crown Shipmanagement, Inc., and Jose Mario C. Bunag are
jointly and solidarily liable to pay Almario M. Centeno the following amounts:
1. US$125,000.00 as permanent total disability benefits; and
2. 10% of the total judgment award as attorney's fees.
The awards for moral and exemplary damages are DELETED. The total
monetary awards shall earn legal interest at (6%) per annum from the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 finality of this Decision until complete payment.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, Perlas-Bernabe, * J.Y. Lopez and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
* Designated additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier
per Raffle dated July 8, 2020.
** Atty. Jose Mario C. Buñag in some parts of the rollo.
1. Rollo , pp. 15-33. Penned by now Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-
Javier, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and
Melchor Q.C. Sadang.

2. Id. at 35.
3. In addition to US$125,000.00 as permanent disability benefits, the CA awarded
Almario with P30,000.00, as moral damages, P50,000.00, as exemplary
damages and attorney's fees.

4. Rollo , pp. 17-18.

5. Id. at 172-181. See Medical Reports, Annexes "F," "G," "G-1," "H," "I," "J," "K,"
"L," "M," and "N."

6. Id. at 181. See Medical Report Annex "N."

7. Id. at 211. See Medical Report Annex "Q-3."

8. Id.

9. Id. at 225-226.
10. Id. at 218-222; and 226-227.

11. Id. at 222.

12. Id. at 224-233. Penned by Commissioner Dolores M. Peralta-Beley, with the
concurrence of Presiding Commissioner Grace E. Maniquez-Tan and
Commissioner Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap.

13. Id. at 231-232.

14. Id. at 232. The dispositive portion of the NLRC decision provides:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, complainant's Appeal is DENIED for

lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision of Labor Arbiter Augusto L. Villanueva
dated July 31, 2015 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. (Id. Emphases in the original.)

15. Id. at 94-95.

16. Id. at 23-24.

17. Id. at 32.

18. Id. at 48-49.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 19. Id. at 56-58.

20. Id. at 243-264.

21. Id. at 254.

22. Id. at 255.

23. Id. at 258.

24. Id. at 267-277.

25. Riingen v. Western Union Financial Services (Hong Kong) Limited, Philippines
Representative Office, G.R. No. 252716, March 3, 2021,
<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/67491>
26. Razonable v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc., G.R. No. 241674, June 10, 2020,
<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/docmonth/Jun/2020/1>

27. 765 Phil. 341 (2015).

28. Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr., id. at 362-363.

29. G.R. No. 227419, June 10, 2020,

<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/docmonth/Jun/2020/1>
30. Razonable v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc., G.R. No. 241674, June 10,
2020, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/docmonth/Jun/2020/1>

31. G.R. No. 241674, June 10, 2020,

<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/docmonth/Jun/2020/1>
32. Razonable v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc., id.

33. G.R. No. 240614, June 10, 2019,

<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/docmonth/Jun/2019/1>
34. Ampo-on v. Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc., G.R. No. 240614, June
10, 2019, id.

35. Rollo , pp. 170-172. See Annexes "E," "E-1," and "F."
36. Id. at 209-210. See Annexes "Q-1," and "Q-2."

37. Ampo-on v. Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc., G.R. No. 240614, June
10, 2019,
<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/docmonth/Jun/2019/1>
38. Rollo , p. 208.

39. G.R. No. 247409, February 3, 2020.

<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/docmonth/Feb/2020/1>
40. See Ampo-on v. Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc., G.R. No. 240614,
June 10, 2019,
<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/docmonth/Jun/2019/1>
41. See Ampo-on v. Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc., id.

42. Rollo , p. 211. See Annex "Q-3."

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 43. Id. at 27.
44. G.R. No. 239055, March 11, 2020,

<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/docmonth/Mar/2020/1>
45. Chan v. Magsaysay Corporation, id.

46. Chan v. Magsaysay Corporation, id.

47. See Pastor v. Bibby Shipping Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 238842, November 19,
2018, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/docmonth/Nov/2018/1>

48. 716 Phil. 267 (2013).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com