United Philippine Lines v. Beseril
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Francisco D. Beseril, a seafarer, was hired by petitioner United Philippine Lines, Inc. (UPL) for its principal Holland America Lines (HAL) in 1987. On August 28, 1997, he was rehired as Assistant Cook for a 12-month period and was found "fit" for work by the company physician. On December 5, 1997, while on duty, he experienced chest pains and difficulty breathing, leading to hospitalization and a triple heart by-pass surgery in Florida. He was discharged from duty on December 20, 1997. After rehabilitation in Manila, he underwent a pre-employment medical examination in November 1998, where he was found "unfit" for work. HAL's hotel and restaurant manager inquired about his fate, noting that while Beseril might perform his duties, their screening doctors were unwilling to certify him fit for sea duty at HAL's risk. On January 13, 1999, HAL's Dr. Carter Hill declared Beseril "permanently unfit." Beseril's lawyer demanded USD 60,000.00 for total permanent disability. HAL clarified that "permanently unfit" was not the same as "permanently disabled" and requested a partial disability percentage. UPL referred Beseril to its physician, Dr. Renato P. Abaya, who, on April 6, 1999, found Beseril in "relatively good health" and "fit for work," based on assurances from his rehabilitation supervisors. Subsequently, Dr. Hill, upon reviewing Beseril's medical records, commented that he was "fit for sea duty as a cook," advising him to stop smoking, exercise, and manage his blood sugar. HAL's legal department claimed Beseril and his counsel agreed to re-employment, but Beseril never reported for duty. 2. Procedural History: On September 1, 1999, Beseril filed a complaint for disability benefits, loss of earning capacity, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter awarded total disability benefits of $60,000.00, ruling that disability lasting more than 120 days was sufficient basis for permanent disability. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified this, deleting the award and ordering UPL and HAL to deploy Beseril to a foreign principal for the same position, finding that the company-designated physician declared him fit for work and that the 120-day period was not a measure of disability degree. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, granting Beseril's claim for total disability benefits, holding that company doctors' findings after a claim was filed were suspect and that Beseril's condition rendered him unemployable, citing the POEA Standard Employment Contract's protective nature for seamen. 3. The Petition: Petitioners UPL and HAL filed the present petition for certiorari, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision. They argued that the appellate court erred in finding Beseril's petition sufficient in form and substance, in awarding permanent disability benefits despite the company-designated physician's certification of fitness, in applying the "third doctor clause," and in finding a "Release and Quitclaim" invalid. They contended that only the company-designated physician can determine fitness or disability, and Beseril's "unfit" diagnosis was merely initial.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding Beseril's petition for certiorari sufficient in form and substance. Whether permanent disability benefits should be awarded to Beseril despite the company-designated physician's certification of fitness for sea duty. Whether the "third doctor clause" of the POEA Standard Contract was applicable. Whether the "Release and Quitclaim" executed by Beseril was proof of receipt of all entitled benefits.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision reversing the NLRC ruling and ordering the award of permanent disability benefits to respondent Beseril.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the petition: The Court found the petition for certiorari to be sufficient in form and substance. On the issue of permanent disability benefits despite certification of fitness: The Supreme Court held that while the company-designated physician's assessment is primary, it is not conclusive. The Court noted that two company-designated physicians, Dr. Abesamis and Dr. Hill, initially found respondent "unfit." The Court found it "notatu dignum" that the certifications of fitness by Dr. Abaya and Dr. Hill came only after Beseril had filed his claim for permanent disability. The Court reiterated the principle that permanent disability is the inability to perform one's job for more than 120 days, regardless of the loss of use of any body part. It was undisputed that Beseril was unable to work for more than 120 days following his heart attack and subsequent rehabilitation. The Court cited Crystal Shipping Inc. v. Natividad, emphasizing that it is of no consequence if the seafarer is cured after a couple of years; what matters is the inability to perform customary work for more than 120 days, which constitutes permanent total disability. The Court also pointed out that the POEA Standard Employment Contract is designed for the protection and benefit of seamen and should be construed liberally in their favor. The Court agreed with the appellate court that Beseril's condition, having undergone a triple bypass, rendered him unemployable as a cook on a seafaring vessel due to the strenuous nature of the job and the stress involved, which could exacerbate his heart condition. Therefore, his refusal to return to work was justified by health considerations and the natural desire for self-preservation, not greed. On the applicability of the "third doctor clause" and the company physician's findings: The Court clarified that the findings of the company-designated physicians were not disregarded. It noted that initial findings by Dr. Abesamis and Dr. Hill declared respondent "unfit." There was no reason for respondent to seek a third doctor's opinion because he was not contesting these initial findings of unfitness. The Court also addressed the petitioners' argument that the "unfit" diagnosis was merely "initial," pointing out that HAL reiterated its declaration of "permanently unfit" and even asked UPL to determine a partial disability percentage. The Court found the appellate court's observation that fitness certifications were issued only after the claim was filed to be significant. The Court also stated that even in the absence of an official finding of unfitness by company-designated physicians, a seafarer could still be deemed to have suffered permanent disability if unable to perform his job for more than 120 days. The Court found no necessity for a third doctor's opinion as it was clear that Beseril could not go back to work given his medical condition and the nature of his job. On the "Release and Quitclaim": Regarding the "Release and Quitclaim," while not explicitly detailed in the provided text, the Court's denial of the petition implies that any such quitclaim did not preclude Beseril from pursuing his claim for disability benefits, especially given the circumstances of his medical condition and the subsequent findings of unfitness by some company physicians. The Court's overall ruling in favor of Beseril suggests that the quitclaim, if any, was not a bar to his claim for total and permanent disability benefits under the POEA contract.
Main Doctrine
The determination of a seafarer's fitness for sea duty or the degree of permanent disability rests primarily with the company-designated physician. However, the Supreme Court may disregard the company physician's findings if they are demonstrably biased or if other evidence clearly indicates the seafarer's unfitness, especially when the illness was contracted during employment and renders the seafarer unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days.