Nazareno v. Maersk Filipinas Crewing
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ramon G. Nazareno was hired as Chief Officer by Maersk Filipinas Crewing Inc. (MCI) for Elite Shipping A/S. While loading timber in Brazil, he fell and injured his right shoulder. He was later declared unfit for work in Philadelphia, USA, and advised to undergo further evaluation. Upon reaching South Korea, he was treated for a "frozen right shoulder" and advised to undergo physical therapy, leading to his repatriation to Manila. In Manila, he underwent physical therapy under Dr. Antonio O. Periquet, but experienced no improvement. He then consulted Dr. Johnny G. Tan, Jr. for chiropractic treatment and later Dr. Cymbeline B. Perez-Santiago, a neurologist, who concluded he would no longer be able to function as before and that his condition would hamper him from operating as chief officer. Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo diagnosed him with Parkinson's disease and a frozen right shoulder, deeming him unfit to work as a seafarer. Procedural History: Petitioner sought disability benefits, which were refused. He filed a complaint, and the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in his favor, ordering respondents to pay disability claims, sickness allowance, and attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's decision but deleted the award for sickness allowance, as it had already been received. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC's decision, ruling that only the company-designated physician's assessment is controlling under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the CA erred in reversing the LA and NLRC decisions, asserting that his independent doctors' assessments should be given credence, as he continued to experience difficulties despite the company physician's certification of fitness.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave error in reversing and setting aside the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission; and whether petitioner is entitled to disability benefits based on the injury sustained and the findings of his independent physicians.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Court reversed and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. Respondents Maersk Filipinas Crewing Inc. and Elite Shipping A/S are ordered to pay jointly and severally to petitioner the amount of US$20,900.00, representing his disability benefits, as well as attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the monetary award, both at its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of entitlement to disability benefits and the Court of Appeals' decision: The Court held that while the 1996 POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) generally requires the company-designated physician to assess a seafarer's disability, this does not deprive the seafarer of the right to seek a second opinion from an independent physician. The Court distinguished the present case from Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., noting that the POEA-SEC applicable here (Memorandum Circular No. 55, Series of 1996) did not contain the provision for a third doctor's binding opinion, unlike the later contract in Vergara. Furthermore, unlike in Vergara, the petitioner here timely questioned the company-designated physician's competence and did not accept the assessment of fitness. The Court emphasized that where serious doubt exists on the company-designated physician's declaration, resort to the prognosis of other competent medical professionals should be made, and the seafarer should be given the opportunity to assert his claim. The Court reiterated the principle that the law looks tenderly on the laborer, and where evidence can be interpreted in two ways, one prejudicial and the other favorable, the balance must be tilted in favor of the laborer, consistent with social justice. The Court found that the findings of petitioner's independent doctors, including those abroad, established his entitlement to disability benefits, and the medical certificate of the company-designated physician could not be given much weight against the overwhelming findings of multiple doctors who treated him. The Court also noted that the inclusion of Parkinson's disease in the diagnosis did not negate his claim for disability benefits arising from the work-related injury. The Court found no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC, that petitioner is entitled to disability benefits corresponding to an Impediment Grade of 7 (equivalent to a disability assessment of 41.8%) under Section 30-A of the 1996 Standard Employment Contract. This entitled him to US$20,900.00 or its equivalent in Philippine currency at the time of payment. The Court agreed with the Labor Arbiter that petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees of ten percent (10%) of the monetary award, pursuant to Article 2208 of the New Civil Code, which allows recovery in actions for recovery of wages of laborers and actions for indemnity under employer's liability laws.
Main Doctrine
While the company-designated physician's assessment is generally controlling, a seafarer is not precluded from seeking a second opinion from an independent physician, and the findings of such independent physician, if substantiated and evaluated on their own merits, can be the basis for awarding disability claims, especially when the company-designated physician's assessment is questionable or leads to a denial of benefits that are otherwise supported by other medical findings.