Carmelito Valenzona vs Fair Shipping Corporation659 SCRA 642 Labor Law Social Legislation Permanent Total Disability; When presentIn May 2001, Carmelito Valemzona was recruited and hired by the FairShipping Corporationto work as anengineerfor Sejin Lines Company Limited. He was assigned to work aboard the M/V Morelos ship. Before he embarked, he was declared fit to work by the company doctor.But in September 2001, Valenzona got sick while aboard the ship. In October 2001, he was confined at a hospital in Mexico. In the same month, he was repatriated by Sejin to the Philippines. Upon reaching the Philippines, Valenzona was treated by the company doctor (Dr. Nicomedes Cruz). He was treated continuously for six months until April 2002.But in April 2002, Valenzona sought a second opinion from a certain Dr. Magpapala and the latter diagnosed Valenzona with a cardiovascular disease. Later that same month, Valenzona demanded from Fair Shipping and Sejin that he be paid his sickness allowance and permanent disability benefits. Instead of paying him, the company did not as in fact, the company made a declaration that after the 6 months testing, Valenzona was found to be fit to work.To prove his claim, Valenzona sought another independent doctor (Dr. Rodrgigo Guanlao). Guanlao concurred with the findings of D. Magpapala as he determined that Valenzona is unfit to work in any capacity.ISSUE:Whether or not Valenzona should be declared to be inflicted with permanent total disability.HELD:Yes. Under their Employment Contract, as well as under the POEA contract which is deemed integrated in said Employment Contract between Valenzona and Fair Shipping/Sinjen: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 physicianbut in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.Also, the Labor Code provides:Art. 192. Permanent total disability. x x xx 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; xxxxThus, 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. What determines a claimants entitlement to permanent disability benefits is hisinability to work for more than 120 days.In this case, it is undisputed that after repatriation, Valenzona was not able to work for more than 120 days (in fact for 199 days counted from day of repatriation to date when he was declared fit to work by the company doctor). This is also notwithstanding the fact that Valenzona was ultimately declared fit to work by the company doctor the fact still remains that he was not able to work for 120 days due to illness and under the law, he was already permanently and totally disabled hence entitled to permanent disability benefits of $60,000.00.

Benjamin Ting vs Carmen Velez-Ting582 SCRA 694 Civil Law Family Code Article 36; Psychological IncapacityPersonalExaminationby Psychologist Not a Condition Sine Qua NonNote:This reinforced the case of Te vs Te which relaxed the application of theMolina Guidelines.In 1972, Benjamin Ting and Carmen Velez met each other in medical school. In 1975, they married each other.In 1980, Benjamin became a full-fledgeddoctor and he practiced at the Velez Hospital (owned by Carmens family).Benjamin and Carmen had six children during their marriage. But after 18 years of marriage, Carmen went to court to have their marriage be declared void on the ground that Benjamin was psychologically incapacitated.She alleged that even before she married Benjamin, the latter was already a drunkard; that Benjamin was a gambler, he was violent, and would rather spend on his expensive hobby; that he rarely stayed home and even neglected his children and family obligations.Carmen presented an expert witness (Dr.Pureza Trinidad-Oate) to prove Benjamins psychological incapacity. However,Oate merely based her findings on the deposition submitted by Benjamin.Oate was not able to personally examine Benjamin because at that time, Benjamin was already working as an anesthesiologist in South Africa.On his part, Benjamin opposed the petition. He also presented his own expert witness (Dr. Renato Obra) to disprove Carmens allegations. Obra was not able to personally examine Benjamin but he also evaluated the same deposition evaluated byOate. Also, Benjamin submitted himself for evaluation to a South African doctor (Dr. A.J.L. Pentz) and the transcript of said evaluation was submitted to Obra and the latter also evaluated the same. Obra found Benjamin not to be psychologically incapacitated.The trial court, and eventually the Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of Carmen.ISSUE:Whether or not Benjamin Tings psychological incapacity was proven.HELD:No. The Supreme Court found the evidence presented to be lacking in order to support a finding of psychological incapacity on the part of Benjamin. Said the Supreme Court:we are not condoning Benjamins drinking and gambling problems, or his violent outbursts against his wife. There is no valid excuse to justify such a behavior. Benjaminmust remember that he owes love, respect, and fidelity to his spouse as much as the latter owes the same to him. Unfortunately, this court finds Carmens testimony, as well as the totality of evidence presented by Carmen, to be too inadequate to declare Benjamin psychologically unfit pursuant to Article 36.Carmen failed to prove that such attitude by Benjamin is psychologically rooted so as to make Benjamin unaware of his marital obligations.It should be remembered that the presumption is always in favor of the validity of marriage.Anent the issue that Benjamin was not personally evaluated by the psychologists which deviates from the MolinaGuidelines, the Supreme Court ruled that as early as the case ofTe vs Te, theMolina Guidelineswere already relaxed. Cases involving Article 36 must be tried on a case-to-case basis. Each case involving the application of Article 36 must be treated distinctly and judged not on the basis ofa prioriassumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own attendant facts. Courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals. The Supreme Court however emphasized that theMolinacase was not abandoned, its application was merely relaxed.

Republic of the Philippines vs Laila Tanyag-San Jose517 SCRA 123 Civil Law Family Code Article 36; Psychological Incapacity Joblessness and Irresponsibility is not Psychological IncapacityWhen examination of the alleged psychologically incapacitated spouse is neededIn 1988, Laila Tanyag, then 19 years old, and Manolito San Jose, then 20 years old, got married to each other, albeit knowing each other for only a short period. The next year, they had a daughter.Their marriage turned out to be not an ideal one, however. Manolito refused to get himself a job. He spent most of his available time with his friends drinking intoxicating substances and gambling activities. It was Laila who had to work in order to support the family. Laila gave Manolito all the chances to change but Manolito never did.In 1997, Lailagave birthto their second child, a boy. Laila thought this would be the beginning of change for Manolito but that change never happened. Thus, in 1998, Laila filed a petition to have their marriage be declared a nullity on the ground that Manolito is psychologically incapacitated due the fact that he was oblivious of his marital obligations.Laila submitted herself to psychological evaluation under Dr. Nedy Tayag. Laila described Manolito to Tayag asa happy-go-lucky individual spending most of his time hanging out with friends. Considered to be a bad influence, he was into gambling, drinking sprees and prohibited drugs as well. Ultimately, Tayag concluded that Manolito is psychologically incapacitated this was even without actually examining Manolito. The RTC denied Lailas petition but on appeal, the Court of Appeals gave weight to Dr. Tayags expert testimony and the appellate court reversed the RTC decision.ISSUE:Whether or not Manolito San Jose was proven to be psychologically incapacitated.HELD:No. It is true that theguidelinesset in the case ofRepublic vs Court of Appeals and Molinadid not requirethat the person sought to be declared psychologically incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non to arrive at such declaration.In fact, ifsuch incapacitycan be proven by independent means, there is no reason why the same should not be credited. However, in this case, the findings, and ultimately the testimony in court, of Dr. Tayag is merely hearsay. The doctorhad no personal knowledge of the facts he testified to, as these had merely been relayed to him by Laila. Tayagwas working on pure suppositions and secondhand information fed to him by one side. Consequently, his testimony can be dismissed as unscientific and unreliable. This is more so because the questioned CA decision was solely grounded on Tayags expert testimony (which was merely based on the information fed to him by Laila) there was no other independent evidence which will support a conclusion of psychological incapacity on the part of Manolito.And based on Lailas description of Manolito, whcih she gave to Tayag,Manolitos alleged psychological incapacity was merely premised on his being jobless and a drug user, as well as his inability to support his family and his refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage.Manolitos state or condition or attitude has not been shown, however, to be a malady or disorder rooted on some incapacitating or debilitating psychological condition. Manolitomerely hasa difficulty if not outright refusal or neglect in the performance of some marital obligations but not psychological incapacity.

Republic of the Philippines vs Lolita Quintero-Hamano428 SCRA 735 Civil Law Family Code Article 36 Psychological Incapacity Irresponsibility; AbandonmentIn 1986, Lolita Quintero and Toshio Hamano met in Japan. They had a love affair which resulted to a child.In 1988, they married here in the Philippines. But only a month after their marriage, Toshio went back to Japan. He only gave financial support to Lolita for the first two months but thereafter, he stopped sending money to Lolita. Lolita wrote Toshio but he ignored those letters.In 1991, Toshio returned to the Philippines but he never even botheredseeinghis family here.In June 1996, Lolita filed a complaintfor declaration of nullity of her marriage with Toshio. She alleged that Toshio is psychologically incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities; that his indifference to his wife and child is a clear manifestation of immaturity and insensitivity.The trial court ruled in favor of Lolita. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC. In its ruling, the CA stated that the guidelines set in the case ofRepublic vs Court of Appeals and Molinaare not applicable to this case because one of the spouse, Toshio, is an alien (Japanese). In short, the CA ruled that the said case is not applicable to mixed marriages.ISSUE:Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct.HELD:No.In proving psychological incapacity, there isno distinction between an alien spouse and a Filipino spouse. The court cannotbe lenient inthe applicationof the rules merely because the spouse alleged to be psychologically incapacitated happens to be a foreign national. The medical and clinical rules to determine psychological incapacity were formulated on the basis of studies of human behavior in general. Hence, the norms used for determining psychological incapacity should apply to any person regardless of nationality.Anent the issue of Toshios psychological incapacity, Lolita was not able to prove the same. The totality of evidence presented fell short of proving that Toshio was psychologically incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities. Toshios act of abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven to be due to some kind of psychological illness. After Lolitatestified on how Toshio abandoned his family, no other evidence was presented showing that his behavior was caused by a psychological disorder. Although, as a rule, there was no need for an actual medical examination, it would have greatly helped Lolitas case had she presented evidence that medically or clinically identified his illness. This could have been done through anexpert witness. It is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological, not physical, illness

Lorna Guillen Pesca vs Zosimo Pesca356 SCRA 588 (408 Phil. 713) Civil Law Family Code Article 36; Psychological Incapacity Emotional Immaturity and Irresponsibility Are Not Psychological IncapacityIn 1975, Lorna Guillen and Zosima Pesca met each other. They only knew each other for three months when they decided to get married in the same year. They had a great start and they even had four children. However, in 1988, Lorna noticed some changes in Zosimo as the latter became cruel, violent, and a habitual drinker. He would hurt her and the children. He would have drinking sessions from late in theafternoonuntil early morning regularly. This went on until 1994 when Lorna decided to leave Zosimo for good and she also filed a petition for the declaration of the nullity of their marriage on the ground that Zosimo is psychologically incapacitated by reason of his emotional immaturity and irresponsibility.The trial court granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed the said ruling. The CA ratiocinated that based on the earlier cases ofSantos vs CAandRepublic vs Court of Appeals and Molina, the allegations of Lorna failed to prove Zosimos psychological incapacity.ISSUE:Whether or not emotional immaturity and irresponsibility may be equated to psychological incapacity.HELD:No.Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, invoked by her, cannot be equated with psychological incapacity.As the CA observed,Lornahas not established the following: That Zosimoshowed signs of mental incapacity as would cause him to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenant, as so provided for in Article 68 of the Family Code; that the incapacity is grave, has preceded the marriage and is incurable; that his incapacity to meet his marital responsibility is because of a psychological, not physical illness; that the root cause of the incapacity has been identified medically or clinically, and has been proven by an expert; and that the incapacity is permanent and incurable in nature.The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies in the plaintiff and any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.