THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 236804, February 01, 2021
SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES, INC., OCEAN WAVE MARITIME CO. AND ANTONETTE ISABEL A. GUERRERO, Petitioners, v. FERDINAND S. COMENDADOR, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
DELOS SANTOS, J.:
Without a valid final and definitive assessment from the company-designated physician, respondent's temporary and total disability, by operation of law, became permanent and total.1
This is to resolve the Petition for Review on Certiorari2 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, dated March 14, 2018, of petitioners Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. (Sea Power), Ocean Wave Maritime Co. (Ocean Wave), and Antonette Isabel A. Guerrero (Guerrero; collectively, petitioners) seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision3 dated February 20, 2017 and the Resolution4 dated January 10, 2018, both of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 143465 and praying for the dismissal of respondent Ferdinand S. Comendador's (Comendador) complaint for lack of merit.
The factual antecedents are as follows:
On December 14, 2012, Comendador was employed as an Ordinary Seaman for the vessel "M.V. Makaria" by Ocean Wave through its resident agent, Sea Power.5
On March 17, 2013, while he was on duty fixing the hatch cover of "M.V. Makaria," Comendador was hit by a metal cable wire when it suddenly snapped and coiled around his body which knocked him unconscious and almost suffocated him to death. Thereafter, he experienced severe pains on his waist. Despite being administered with medication, the lingering pain made it impossible for him to go back to work.6
Comendador requested to be brought to a medical facility. However, he had to wait for a week as "M.V. Makaria" was still in transit in the open sea. Upon reaching the next port of convenience, Comendador was examined although he was not able to complete the laboratory tests since "M.V. Makaria" had to leave the port immediately after discharging all its cargoes. Because he cannot anymore bear the recurring pain, he requested to immediately be repatriated so he could seek medical treatment. However, his request was denied due to the vessel's lack of crew to replace him. As a result, Comendador's prolonged stay in "M.V. Makaria" caused his waist to become swollen due to the abscesses which developed on the injured portion of his waist.7
On September 16, 2013, Comendador was finally repatriated where he reported immediately to Sea Power's office. After which, Sea Power, through its President, Guerrero, referred him to Dr. Jose Emmanuel F. Gonzales (Dr. Gonzales) of the De Los Santos Medical Center.8
On September 18, 2013, Dr. Gonzales found that Comendador had a "huge hematoma formation over his inguinal area" and advised him to undergo hospital confinement for observation and possible drainage (of the hematoma).9
On September 24, 2013, Comendador was confined at the Perpetual Help Hospital where he underwent surgery in order to drain the abscesses that had formed in his waist. Thereafter, he was discharged from the hospital.10
On September 25, 2013, Dr. Gonzales issued a medical progress report to Sea Power stating that an incision and a corresponding drainage had been made on the injured waist. He added that the "whole procedure was uneventful" and Comendador's vital signs were controlled to an acceptable level throughout the operation.11
However, Comendador went to see Dr. Maria Corazon HidalgoCabuquit who, in turn, referred him for therapy because he had difficulty in ambulating due to his painful waist. Consequently, he underwent therapy starting October 2013.12
On November 6, 2013, Dr. Gonzales issued a final medical report of Comendador's condition to Sea Power stating that the "physical examination showed dry and healed wound," including the drain site. He added that Comendador "claims that he is already asymptomatic." In conclusion, Dr. Gonzales declared Comendador "Fit to Resume Sea Duties" as of that date.13
Also on the same date, a document denominated as "Certificate of Fitness for Work" was executed by Comendador (and witnessed by Dr. Gonzales) releasing Ocean Wave and Sea Power from all liabilities "in connection with being released x x x as fit for duty" and declaring that the same document "may be pleaded in bar or any proceedings of the law that may be taken by any government agency."14
Meanwhile, during the period of January 7, 2014 to February 2, 2014, Comendador was still undergoing therapy.15
On February 14, 2014, Comendador was subjected to a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan where it was found by Dr. Raymond Piedad of the Radiological Sciences Division of the Philippine Heart Center that he had "subcutaneous and intramuscular abscess formations with fistulous tracts," as well as an "intraosseous and paravertebral abscess formations x x x with involvement of the left iliopsoas muscle" in his waist.16
On February 24, 2014, Comendador filed a Complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA) claiming for disability and medical benefits against petitioners. Thereafter, the proceedings ensued.17
On March 10, 2014, Dr. Misael Jonathan A. Tieman (Dr. Tieman) issued a "Disability Report" stating that after evaluating the MRI results, as well as all the previous medical documents relative to the injured waist, Comendador suffers from permanent disability and that "he is unfit to work as a seaman in any capacity."18
Comendador then filed a complaint against petitioners for permanent disability and other benefits, with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) docketed as NLRC Case No. (M) NCR-02-02096-14, before LA Jaime M. Reyno (LA Reyno).19
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the above captioned complaint for lack of merit. However, complainant is entitled to be paid the amount of US$366.66 or its equivalent at actual payment as sickness allowance.The LA ratiocinated that Dr. Gonzales' findings should be upheld over those of Dr. Tieman's because he was the doctor who supervised and monitored Comendador's injury.22
All other claims are dismissed.
SO ORDERED.21chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, complainant's appeal is GRANTED. Consequently, the assailed Decision of the Labor Arbiter is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Complainant is declared totally and permanently disabled and accordingly is entitled to his monetary claim of US$60,000.00 and sickwage (sic) allowance of US$1,466.64, or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time of payment. Complainant is also entitled to 10% of the total monetary awards as attorney's fees.The NLRC found that the examinations by Dr. Gonzales were not as thorough as those of Dr. Ticman's.25]
SO ORDERED.24chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
FIRST, Comendador already had a cause of action at the time he filed his Complaint because he already got hold of an objective prognosis in the form of an MRI scan result[;] x x xThe CA ruled that these aforementioned circumstances adequately justify the NLRC's award of disability claims and all other monetary claims in favor of Comendador.
SECOND, Dr. Tieman's findings of existent internal conditions weigh more [than] that of Dr. Gonzales' findings of apparent external healing[;]
x x x
THIRD, the records do not contain any agreement or contract showing that parties had indeed agreed to refer to a third doctor in case disagreements in disability assessments[; and]
x x x
LAST, the circumstances surrounding Comendador's case justify the application of social justice principles favoring the rights of laborers.31chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Petitioners argue in their Petition35 that contrary to the CA's ruling, Comendador had no cause of action because at the time he filed his complaint, he had no ground for a disability claim since he did not have any sufficient evidence to support his allegation. Moreover, petitioners contend that while the company-designated physician cleared Comendador from his condition and declared him fit to resume sea duties within the required period, such declaration of fitness was even acknowledged by Comendador when he freely and voluntarily executed the Certificate of Fitness for Work. Thus, they contend that Comendador should not be allowed to assail such medical report assessment because he concurred to it, which shows that the filing of this claim for total and permanent disability benefits is just a mere afterthought. Furthermore, the medical report of Comendador's appointed physician cannot be given greater credence as they were based on a single fleeting consultation and as such, did not represent a comprehensive examination of Comendador's condition. Lastly, Comendador's failure to comply with the mandated conflict-resolution procedure of referral to a neutral third doctor, which is mandatory in nature, rendered the company-designated physician's finding as final and controlling.I.
THE HONORABLE [CA] GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING PETITIONERS LIABLE FOR PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS OF US$ 60,000.00 AND OTHER BENEFITS FOR LACK OF FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS:
- CONTRARY TO THE HONORABLE COURT'S RULING, [COMENDADOR] HAD NO CAUSE OF ACTION AT THE TIME HE FILED THE INSTANT COMPLAINT.
- THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN CLEARED [COMENDADOR] FROM HIS CONDITION AND DECLARED HIM FIT TO RESUME SEA DUTIES WITHIN THE REQUIRED PERIOD. SUCH DECLARATION OF FITNESS WAS EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY [COMENDADOR] WHEN HE FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY EXECUTED THE CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS FOR WORK.
- THE MEDICAL REPORTS OF [COMENDADOR]'S APPOINTED PHYSICIANS CANNOT BE GIVEN GREATER CREDENCE AS THEY WERE BASED ON A SINGLE FLEETING CONSULTATION AND AS SUCH, DID NOT REPRESENT A COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF [COMENDADOR]'S CONDITION.
- [COMENDADOR] FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATED CONFLICT-RESOLUTION PROCEDURE OF REFERRAL TO A NEUTRAL THIRD DOCTOR. SUCH COURSE OF ACTION IS MANDATORY IN NATURE AND HENCE, [COMENDADOR]'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME RESULTS TO THE COMPANY DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN'S FINDINGS AS FINAL AND CONTROLLING.
II.
THE HONORABLE [CA] GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE GRANT OF SICKNESS ALLOWANCE AND ATTORNEY'S FEES IN FAVOR OF [COMENDADOR].34chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Generally, a question of fact cannot be entertained by the Court; exceptions. |
Assessment of company-designated physician, when valid. |
A final and definite disability assessment is necessary in order to truly reflect the true extent of the sickness or injuries of the seafarer and his or her capacity to resume work as such. Otherwise, the corresponding disability benefits awarded might not be commensurate with the prolonged effects of the injuries suffered.41chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryIn Monana v. MEC Global Shipmanagement and Manning Corp.,42 this Court further stressed the overriding consideration that there must be sufficient basis to support the assessment:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Regardless of who the doctor is and his or her relation to the parties, the overriding consideration by both the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission should be that the medical conclusions are based on (a) the symptoms and findings collated with medically acceptable diagnostic tools and methods, (b) reasonable professional inferences anchored on prevailing scientific findings expected to be known to the physician given his or her level of expertise, and (c) the submitted medical findings or synopsis, supported by plain English annotations that will allow the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission to make the proper evaluation.43chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryThus, this Court has previously disregarded the findings of company-designated physicians for being incomplete,44 doubtful,45 clearly biased in favor of an employer,46 or for lack of finality.47
In addition, that it was by operation of law that brought forth the conclusive presumption that Munar is totally and permanently disabled, there is no legal compulsion for him to observe the procedure prescribed under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC. A seafarer's compliance with such procedure presupposes that the company-designated physician came up with an assessment as to his fitness or unfitness to work before the expiration of the 120-day or 240-day periods. Alternatively put, absent a certification from the company-designated physician, the seafarer had nothing to contest and the law steps in to conclusively characterize his disability as total and permanent. (Emphasis supplied)To reiterate, the Court has previously disregarded the findings of company-designated physicians for being incomplete, doubtful, clearly biased in favor of an employer, or for lack of finality.54 Absent a valid assessment from a company-designated physician, the mandatory rule on a third-doctor-referral will not apply here.55
The rigorous process for disability claims prescribed in the POEASEC seeks a balance between a seafarer's right to receive a just compensation for his or her injuries and an employer's interest to determine the veracity of disability claims against it. In line with this policy, the [third-doctor-rule] was added to enable the parties to expeditiously settle disability claims in case of conflict between the findings of the company-designated physicians and the seafarer's doctor. It was not to be construed to mean that "it is only the company-designated physician who could assess the condition and declare the disability of seamen." Certainly, it cannot be used by employers to limit or defeat the legitimate claims of seafarers.Under the circumstances of this case, non-referral to a third doctor will not prejudice Comendador's claim.
Signed Release, Waiver and Quitclaim, when valid. |
Endnotes:
1Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara, 832 Phil. 380, 407 (2018).
2Rollo, pp. 28-61.
3 Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring; id. at 10-22.
4 Id. at 23-24.
5 Id. at 11.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 11-12.
[9 Id. at 12.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 13.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 105.
20 Id.
21 Id. at 14.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 14-15.
25 Id. at 15.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Supra note 3.
31Rollo, pp. 18-20.
32 Id. at 34.
33 Supra note 4.
34Rollo, pp. 34-35.
35 Id. at 28-54.
36 Id. at 104-130.
37Gepulle-Garbo. v. Spouses Garabato, 750 Phil. 846, 855 (2015).
38Carbonell v. Carbonell-Mendes, 762 Phil. 529, 537 (2015).
39Quebral v. Angbus Construction, Inc., 798 Phil. 179, 187 (2016).
40 Supra note 1.
41 Id. at 400.
42 746 Phil. 736 (2014).
43 Id. at 752-753.
44Hanseatic Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. Ballon, 769 Phil. 567 (2015).
45Olidana v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc., 772 Phil. 234 (2015).
46Seagull and Maritime Corp. v. Dee, 548 Phil. 660 (2007).
47Tamin v. Magsaysay Maritime Corp., 794 Phil. 286 (2016).
48Multinational Ship Management, Inc. v. Briones, G.R. No. 239793, January 27, 2020.
49 774 Phil. 332 (2015).
50Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara, supra note 1.
51 POEA Memo Circ. No. 010-10 (2010), Sec. 20(A)(3), Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships.
52Magsaysay Mol Marine, Inc. v. Atraje, 836 Phil. 1061, 1083 (2018).
53Kerstel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, 702 Phil. 717, 737-738 (2013).
54Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara, supra note 1, at 400-401.
55Esteva v. Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc., G.R. No. 225899, July 10, 2019.
56Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission, 521 Phil. 330, 347 (2006).
57Fil-Star Maritime Corp. v. Rosete, 677 Phil. 262, 274 (2011); Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara, supra note 1, at 405.
58Sunit v. OSM Maritime Services, Inc., 806 Phil. 505, 514 (2017).
59 Supra note 52, at 1086-1087.
60Dionio v. ND Shipping Agency and Allied Services, Inc., G.R. No. 231096, August 15, 2018.
61 Id.cralawredlibrary