Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83724:57993&catid=1588&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 05:01:24+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 195832, October 01, 2014 - FORMERLY INC SHIPMANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED (NOW INC NAVIGATION CO. PHILIPPINES, INC.), REYNALDO M. RAMIREZ AND/OR INTERORIENT NAVIGATION CO., LTD./LIMASSOL, CYPRUS, Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN I. ROSALES, Respondent.
FORMERLY INC SHIPMANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED (NOW INC NAVIGATION CO. PHILIPPINES, INC.), REYNALDO M. RAMIREZ AND/OR INTERORIENT NAVIGATION CO., LTD./LIMASSOL, CYPRUS, Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN I. ROSALES, Respondent.
We resolve the appeal of the decision1 dated December 6, 2010 and the resolution dated February 24, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 107271. The appealed decision reversed the resolution dated November 21, 2008 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and reinstated the June 26, 2007 decision of the Labor Arbiter (LA) finding Benjamin Rosales (Rosales) entitled to Grade 1 disability benefits.
For its part, INC emphasized that Dr. Cruz only gave a Grade 7 disability rating based on his post-treatment evaluation of Rosales; that under the POEA-SEC, it is the company-designated physician who is tasked to assess the fitness of a seafarer and to give the corresponding disability benefits rating. INC also pointed out that the award of disability benefits is not dependent on the impairment of the seafarer’s earning capacity but on the gravity of the injury he had sustained.
In his decision of June 26, 2007,11 the LA found the complaint meritorious and ordered INC to pay Rosales Sixty Thousand United Stated dollars (US$60,000.00) as permanent total disability benefits, plus three percent (3%) of this amount as attorney’s fees.
The LA noted that Rosales is entitled to Grade 1 disability benefits because his illness prevented him from working for more than one hundred twenty (120) days reckoned from the time he was repatriated in February 2006 until his disability rating was issued in October 2006.
INC appealed the ruling to the NLRC. The latter, in its resolution of January 4, 2008, affirmed the LA’s decision. The NLRC, however, subsequently reversed its ruling.12 It opined in this reversal that Rosales should only be entitled to a partial disability benefit amounting to Twenty Thousand United States dollars (US$20,900.00) in accordance with Dr. Cruz’ assessment.
The NLRC reasoned out that Dr. Cruz’ assessment should prevail over Dr. Vicaldo’s finding because Dr. Cruz, as the company-designated doctor, had thoroughly examined and had overseen the treatment of Rosales from the time of repatriation until the date of the issuance of his disability grading, while Dr. Vicaldo only attended to Rosales once on November 9, 2006.
Rosales challenged the NLRC ruling by filing with the CA a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. He contended that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in upholding the assessment of the company-designated physician and in finding that he is not entitled to full disability benefits.
The CA granted the petition in its decision of December 6, 2010,13 thereby reinstating the LA’s decision finding Rosales entitled to permanent total disability benefits. The appellate court found that from the time Rosales was repatriated until the disability grading was issued, a period of eight (8) months or more than one hundred twenty (120) days, had lapsed and Rosales had not been able to work during this period. The CA also considered that despite medical treatment, Dr. Cruz still found that Rosales’ illness persisted; that this declaration, coupled with Rosales’ two (2) major heart operations, should be more than sufficient to conclude that he could no longer perform his duties as Chief Cook. For this reason, Rosales’ earning capacity was grossly impaired, warranting the award of Grade 1 permanent total disability benefits.
INC moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion in its resolution of February 24, 2011;14 hence, the petition.
WHETHER OR NOT ROSALES IS ENTITLED TO FULL DISABILITY COMPENSATION BENEFITS BECAUSE HE WAS UNABLE TO WORK FOR ONE HUNDRED TWENTY (120) DAYS.
WHETHER THE CA ERRED IN FINDING GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE NLRC IN FAVORING THE FINDINGS OF ROSALES’ PHYSICIANS OVER THAT OF THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN.
INC primarily argues that the CA erred in finding that there had been grave abuse of discretion in the ruling of the NLRC; that (1) the disability is measured in terms of gradings, not by the number of days of actual inability to work; and (2) in a conflict of findings between the company-designated physician and the private physician, it is the company-designated physician’s findings that should prevail.
We find the petition meritorious. The CA gravely abused its discretion when it totally disregarded the governing contract between the parties – a situation that this Court cannot disregard without risking instability in maritime labor relations involving Filipino seamen.
The law and this pronouncement make it clear that INC is obligated to pay for the treatment of Rosales, plus his basic wage, during the 120-day period from repatriation while he is undergoing treatment; he could not work during this period and hence was on temporary total disability.
Permanent disability transpires when the inability to work continues beyond one hundred twenty (120) days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body. In comparison with the concept of permanent disability, total disability means the incapacity of an employee to earn wages in the same or similar kind of work that he was trained for, or is accustomed to perform, or in any kind of work that a person of his mentality and attainments can do. It does not mean absolute helplessness.
Thus, while Rosales was entitled to temporary total disability benefits during his treatment period (because he could not totally work during this whole period), it does not follow that he should likewise be entitled to permanent total disability benefits when his disability was assessed by the company-designated physician after his treatment. He may be recognized to be have permanent disability because of the period he was out of work and could not work [in this case, more than one hundred twenty (120) days], but the extent of his disability (whether total or partial) is determined, not by the number of days that he could not work, but by the disability grading the doctor recognizes based on his resulting incapacity to work and earn his wages.
It is the doctor’s findings that should prevail as he/she is equipped with the proper discernment, knowledge, experience and expertise on what constitutes total or partial disability. His declaration serves as the basis for the degree of disability that can range anywhere from Grade 1 to Grade 14.19 Notably, this is a serious consideration that cannot be determined by simply counting the number of treatment lapsed days.
In light of these distinctions, to confuse the concepts of permanent and total disability is to trigger a situation where disability would be determined by simply counting the duration of the seafarer’s illness. This system would inevitably induce the unscrupulous to delay treatment for more than one hundred twenty (120) days to avail of the more favorable award of permanent total disability benefits.
After establishing the importance of the physician’s assessment of disability claims, the present case should have already been resolved had it not been for the conflicting findings of Dr. Cruz and Dr. Vicaldo.
This referral to a third doctor has been held by this Court to be a mandatory procedure as a consequence of the provision that it is the company-designated doctor whose assessment should prevail. In other words, the company can insist on its disability rating even against a contrary opinion by another doctor, unless the seafarer expresses his disagreement by asking for the referral to a third doctor who shall make his or her determination and whose decision is final and binding on the parties. We have followed this rule in a string of cases, among them, Philippine Hammonia,21Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corp.,22Santiago v. Pacbasin Shipmanagement, Inc.,23Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency,24 and Masangkay v. Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc.25 Thus, at this point, the matter of referral pursuant to the provision of the POEA-SEC is a settled ruling.
By so acting, Rosales proceeded in a manner contrary to the terms of his contract with INC in challenging the company doctor’s assessment; he failed to signify his intent to submit the disputed assessment to a third doctor and to wait for arrangements for the referral of the conflicting assessments of his disability to a third doctor.
Significantly, no explanation or reason was ever given for the omission to comply with this mandatory requirement; no indication whatsoever is on record that an earnest effort to secure compliance with the law was made; Rosales immediately filed his complaint with the LA. As we recently ruled in Bahia Shipping Services, Inc., et al. v. Crisante C. Constantino,27 when the seafarer challenges the company doctor’s assessment through the assessment made by his own doctor, the seafarer shall so signify and the company thereafter carries the burden of activating the third doctor provision.
In the absence of any request from him (as shown by the records of the case), the employer-company cannot be expected to respond. As the party seeking to impugn the certification that the law itself recognizes as prevailing, Constantino bears the burden of positive action to prove that his doctor’s findings are correct, as well as the burden to notify the company that a contrary finding had been made by his own physician. Upon such notification, the company must itself respond by setting into motion the process of choosing a third doctor who, as the POEA-SEC provides, can rule with finality on the disputed medical situation.
In the absence of a third doctor resolution of the conflicting assessments between Dr. Lim and Dr. Almeda, Dr. Lim’s assessment of Constantino’s health should stand.28 Thus, the CA’s conclusion that Constantino’s inability to work for more than 120 days rendered him permanently disabled cannot be sustained.
Thus, as matters stand in the present case, the complaint was premature; it should have been dismissed as early as the LA’s level since the fit-to-work certification and grading by the company-designated physician prevails unless a third party doctor, sought by the parties, declares otherwise.
Even granting that the complaint should be given due course, we hold that the company-designated physician’s assessment should prevail over that of the private physician. The company-designated physician had thoroughly examined and treated Rosales from the time of his repatriation until his disability grading was issued, which was from February 20, 2006 until October 10, 2006. In contrast, the private physician only attended to Rosales once, on November 9, 2006.31This is not the first time that this Court met this situation. Under these circumstances, the assessment of the company-designated physician is more credible for having been arrived at after months of medical attendance and diagnosis, compared with the assessment of a private physician done in one day on the basis of an examination or existing medical records.
We are thus compelled to dismiss the present complaint, as we had similarly done in Philippine Hammonia,32 to impress upon the public the significance of a binding obligation. This pronouncement shall not only speed up the processing of maritime disability claims and decongest court dockets; more importantly, our ruling would restore faith and confidence in obligations that have voluntarily been entered upon. As an institution tasked to uphold and respect the law, it is our primary duty to ensure faithful compliance with the law whether the dispute affects strictly private interests or one imbued with public interest. We shall not hesitate to dismiss a petition wrongfully filed, or to hold any persons liable for its malicious initiation.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby GRANT the petition and SET ASIDE the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. The complaint is hereby DISMISSED.
1 Through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, rollo, pp. 33-53. The appealed decision was penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and concurred in by Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Ramon R. Garcia, rollo, pp. 15-28.
8 CA rollo, pp. 44-45.
11 CA rollo, pp. 122-135.
12 Resolution of April 22, 2008; id. at 175-181.
16 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 physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.
17 588 Phil. 895, 912 (2008).
18Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad, 510 Phil. 332, 340-341 (2005).
19 Under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, only injuries or disabilities classified as Grade 1 may be considered as total and permanent.
20 G.R. No. 194362, June 26, 2013, 700 SCRA 53, 64.
22 G.R. No. 203161, February 26, 2014.
23 G.R. No. 194677, April 18, 2012, 670 SCRA 271.
24 G.R. No. 194758, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 587.
25 G.R. No. 172800, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 592.
27 G.R. No. 180343, July 9, 2014.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.