Scanmar Maritime Services v. Hernandez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Celestino M. Hernandez, Jr. was employed as an Able Seaman by petitioner Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. for its foreign principal, petitioner Crown Shipmanagement, Inc. During his deployment, respondent experienced pain in his inguinal area and pelvic bone, which radiated to his right scrotum and thigh. He was medically repatriated to the Philippines after being found unfit to resume duties. He underwent surgery for Varicocoele and Epididymitis performed by a company-designated physician. Despite ongoing medical treatment, respondent filed a complaint for permanent disability benefits, damages, and attorney's fees, claiming loss of earning capacity due to his unfitness for sea duties, as attested by his own physician. Petitioners contested his claim, asserting his illness was not work-related, that he was declared fit to work by the company-designated physician, and that he failed to comply with the POEA-SEC procedure for resolving conflicting medical assessments. 2. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondent, awarding him total and permanent disability compensation and attorney's fees, finding his illness work-related and compensable. Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), arguing that the respondent's Varicocoele was not work-related, that the company-designated physician's assessment of fitness should prevail, and that the respondent failed to seek a third doctor's opinion. The NLRC dismissed the appeal, affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision and holding that the respondent was permanently and totally disabled, with a causal connection between his work and illnesses, and that the company-designated physician's certification issued after 120 days rendered the disability total and permanent. The NLRC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition, holding that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion and that the CA correctly upheld the assessment of the respondent's physician and considered the disability total and permanent. 3. The Petition: This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the NLRC. Petitioners argue that the respondent's complaint was prematurely filed because the company-designated physician had not yet issued a final disability assessment within the allowable 240-day period, and that the respondent failed to comply with the POEA-SEC requirement of referring conflicting medical assessments to a third doctor. They further contend that the assessment of the company-designated physician, who is a specialist, should be given more weight than that of the respondent's physician, who examined him only once. Petitioners also argue that the respondent is not entitled to attorney's fees. The Supreme Court found merit in the petition, ruling that the respondent's complaint was prematurely filed as his condition could not yet be considered permanent and total, and that his failure to comply with the POEA-SEC procedure was fatal to his claim.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent's complaint for total and permanent disability benefits was prematurely filed. Whether the respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability compensation, considering compliance with POEA-SEC procedures and relevant jurisprudence. Whether the respondent is entitled to attorney's fees.
Ruling
The Petition is GRANTED. The June 27, 2013 Decision and February 5, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint of Celestino M. Hernandez, Jr. is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the prematurity of the complaint: The Court ruled that the respondent's complaint was prematurely filed. The 120-day period for temporary total disability may be extended up to 240 days if further medical treatment is required. In this case, the respondent filed his complaint on July 20, 2010, which was 162 days after repatriation. At that time, the company-designated physician was still assessing his condition, and the 240-day period had not yet lapsed. Therefore, his condition could not be considered permanent and total, and his cause of action for total and permanent disability benefits had not yet accrued. The Court clarified that temporary total disability only becomes permanent when declared so by the company-designated physician within the 240-day period, or upon the expiration of the said period without such a declaration and the seafarer is still unable to resume duties. On the entitlement to total and permanent disability compensation and compliance with POEA-SEC and the assessment of physicians, and reliance on previous jurisprudence: The Court found that the respondent was not entitled to total and permanent disability compensation because his complaint was prematurely filed. The Court emphasized that the prevailing rule applicable to complaints filed after October 6, 2008, is the 240-day rule. The Court also held that the respondent's failure to comply with the procedure prescribed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Authority-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) was a sufficient ground for the denial of his claim. The NLRC and CA mistakenly relied on the case of Quitoriano v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc., which applied the 120-day rule. As the respondent filed his complaint in 2010, the 240-day rule was the applicable standard. On attorney's fees: Since the primary claim for disability benefits was dismissed due to premature filing, the award of attorney's fees was also set aside.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer's complaint for total and permanent disability benefits is prematurely filed if it is lodged before the company-designated physician has issued a final assessment within the 240-day period, or before the expiration of the said period without such declaration, and the seafarer is still undergoing medical treatment or evaluation.