Skip to main content

HORLADOR v. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., et. al, G.R. No. 236576 | 2018 - Synopsis Only

Court Awards Attorney’s Fees to Seaman in Permanent and Total Disability Benefits Case

G.R. No. 236576 | September 5, 2018

Ariel P. Horlador vs. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., Marine Ship Management Ltd., and Captain Marlon L. Malanao Ponente: Justice Perlas-Bernabe

📌 Full text: .

Nature of the Petition

This Petition for Review on Certiorari challenges the February 3, 2017 Decision and December 15, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136386, which modified the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruling by removing the attorney’s fees award in favor of Ariel P. Horlador, a seafarer entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.

Court Ruling

✅ Petition GRANTED. ✅ Attorney’s fees reinstated at 10% of total monetary awards.

The Supreme Court MODIFIED the CA ruling by reinstating the attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary compensation due to the petitioner.

Key Doctrines

✔️ Attorney’s Fees Under Labor Law Two legal concepts apply to attorney’s fees:

  • Ordinary Concept: Compensation for legal services.

  • Extraordinary Concept: Court-ordered indemnity from the losing party, payable to the winning party.

✔️ Grounds for Awarding Attorney’s Fees (Civil Code, Article 2208) Attorney’s fees may be awarded when:

  • Exemplary damages are given.

  • A defendant acted in bad faith by refusing to settle a valid claim.

  • A worker has to litigate to recover wages and benefits.

📌 In labor disputes, the Court consistently upholds a 10% attorney’s fee for successful claims.

Case Background

🔹 Horlador’s Employment & Injury

  • In 2012, Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTCI) hired Ariel P. Horlador as Chief Cook aboard MV PRAIA.

  • While carrying provisions on board, Horlador experienced severe abdominal pain and a hernia, requiring repatriation for medical treatment.

  • His employer ignored his requests for medical assistance, forcing him to seek private healthcare using his own insurance.

🔹 Legal Battle for Disability Benefits

  • Horlador was diagnosed with Chronic Prostatitis, leading to permanent and total disability.

  • He filed a case demanding disability benefits from his employer.

🔹 Court Decisions ✅ Labor Arbiter: Dismissed Horlador’s complaint. ✅ NLRC: Ordered US$60,000 disability benefits + 10% attorney’s fees. ✅ Court of Appeals (CA): Upheld NLRC ruling but deleted attorney’s fees. ✅ Supreme Court: Reinstated attorney’s fees, holding that Horlador was forced to litigate to claim his rightful benefits.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court ruled that Ariel P. Horlador was entitled to attorney’s fees, since he had to litigate to secure his disability compensation. The case highlights the importance of legal protections for seafarers and the right to fair compensation when employers unjustly deny benefits.

📌 For full details, read the official ruling: .

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Mandamus and its Application in Judicial Proceedings

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy compelling a tribunal, corporation, board, or person to perform a duty expressly required by law . It applies when: 1️⃣ An entity unlawfully neglects the performance of a legal duty arising from an office or trust. 2️⃣ An entity unlawfully excludes another from a right or office to which they are entitled. 3️⃣ There is no other adequate or speedy legal remedy available. 📌 Relevant Case: De Leon v. Duterte (G.R. No. 252118, 2020) Essential Elements of a Mandamus Petition 📌 To successfully invoke mandamus, the petitioner must prove: ✔ Legal Right – The petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right to compel the action. ✔ Correlative Obligation – The respondent must have a duty to respect that right . ✔ Violation by the Respondent – There must be an act or omission violating the petitioner’s right . ✔ Refusal to Comply – A failure to perform the duty , whether explicit or implied, triggers a cause of action. 📌 Relevant Case: Phi...
Read more

People vs. Jugueta, 788 SCRA 331, G.R. No. 202124 April 5, 2016

G.R. No. 202124. April 5, 2016. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IRENEO JUGUETA, accused-appellant. PONENTE:  PERALTA, J.:  Synopsis: In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, Irenneo Jugueta was charged with Multiple Attempted Murder along with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel. However, Roger San Miguel moved for reinvestigation of the case and was eventually dismissed, leaving Irenneo as the only defendant. The prosecution's witness, Norberto, testified that Irenneo and the two other men entered his family's nipa hut and fired shots, causing the death of one daughter and injury to another. Irenneo offered a defense of denial and alibi, but this was found to be weak by the trial court, which ruled that Irenneo conspired with the two other men to shoot the family of Norberto. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The main issue raised in the appeal was the inconsistencies in Norberto's testimony, but these were deemed to be trivial an...
Read more

Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 |March 20, 2013

Case Digest: Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 | March 20, 2013 Ponente: 📌 Topic: Applicability of Reserva Troncal – First cousins of the descendant/prepositus are fourth-degree relatives and cannot be considered reservees/reservatarios. Facts The disputed parcel of land was originally owned by Exequiel Mendoza, who inherited it from Placido and Dominga Mendoza through an oral partition. Upon Exequiel’s death, ownership was transferred to his spouse Leonor and their only daughter, Gregoria. After Leonor’s passing, Gregoria became the sole owner. Gregoria died intestate, and her aunt Victoria Pantaleon, Leonor’s sister, adjudicated the property to herself as the sole surviving heir. Petitioners (grandchildren of Placido and Dominga) argued that the property should have been reserved for them under Article 891 of the Civil Code on Reserva Troncal. They filed an action for Recovery of Possession, Cancellation of TCT, and Reconveyance, which the RTC granted. However, the Court of A...
Read more