Dalusong v. Eagle Clarc Shipping
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ricardo A. Dalusong was hired as an Able Seaman on board the vessel MV Malene Ostervold by private respondents Eagle Clarc Shipping Philippines, Inc., Norfield Offshore AS, and/or Capt. Leopoldo T. Arcillar. On December 13, 2009, while petitioner was performing duties, a sudden swell caused the vessel to move, resulting in a crew member falling on petitioner and injuring his right foot. He was diagnosed with a fractured ankle and repatriated to the Philippines on December 23, 2009, for further medical treatment. Procedural History: Upon repatriation, petitioner underwent treatment and physical therapy. The company-designated doctor issued an interim disability grading of "grade 8" and later a final disability grading of "grade 11 - complete immobility of an ankle joint in normal position." Petitioner disagreed and consulted his own physician, Dr. Nicanor Escutin, who found him to be suffering from "PARTIAL PERMANENT DISABILITY" and "unfit for seaduty in whatever capacity as seaman." Petitioner filed a complaint for disability benefits, sick wages, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of private respondents, giving more weight to the company-designated doctor's assessment and awarding US$12,551.00 plus attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified this, ruling that petitioner was entitled to US$70,000.00 based on a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) admission by private respondents. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC, reinstating the Labor Arbiter's assignment of grade 11 disability, finding the company-designated doctor's assessment more credible due to supporting tests. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the degree of petitioner's disability was established by the company-designated physician. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the company-designated doctor and petitioner's doctor came out with the same conclusion that petitioner was suffering from partial permanent disability. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner's medical treatment and examinations, which went beyond 120 days but within the 240-day limit, justified the partial disability assessment. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents had not acted in bad faith as to warrant the award of attorney's fees.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision. It held that the company-designated doctor's assessment of Grade 11 disability was more credible due to the thoroughness of the medical tests and examinations conducted over six months. The Court found that the petitioner's physician's report lacked supporting evidence and contained an inconsistent assessment. The Court also clarified that a disability lasting more than 120 days does not automatically mean total and permanent disability, especially when the company-designated doctor issues a final assessment within the 240-day period, classifying it as permanent partial disability. The award of attorney's fees was deleted as there was no showing of bad faith on the part of the private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the company-designated physician's assessment: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the company-designated doctor's assessment of Grade 11 disability was more credible. The company-designated doctor conducted a series of medical tests and examinations over a period of six months, including ambulation and squatting tests, left ankle flexing test, and weight-bearing tests, before issuing a final disability grading. This thoroughness, supported by objective medical procedures, provided greater evidentiary weight compared to the report of the petitioner's chosen physician. The Court reiterated the principle that the doctor who has had personal knowledge of the actual medical condition, having closely monitored and treated the seafarer, is more qualified to assess the disability. The company-designated doctor's team of specialists, including an orthopedic surgeon and a physical therapist, provided a more comprehensive evaluation than the single medical report from the petitioner's doctor, which lacked evidence of specific tests and examinations. On the alleged agreement in findings between doctors: The Court clarified that while both doctors found the petitioner to be suffering from "partial permanent disability," their conclusions and the weight of their findings differed significantly. The petitioner's doctor also stated that the petitioner was "unfit for seaduty in whatever capacity as seaman," which the Court noted could be interpreted as total permanent disability, yet this conclusion was not supported by adequate tests. In contrast, the company-designated doctor's assessment of Grade 11 was based on extensive examinations. Therefore, the Court found that the NLRC's interpretation that both doctors arrived at the same conclusion for the purpose of awarding total permanent disability benefits was erroneous. On the 120-day rule and its extension: The Court explained that a disability lasting continuously for more than 120 days does not automatically equate to total and permanent disability. The Labor Code and its Implementing Rules provide for an extension of temporary total disability benefits up to a maximum of 240 days if further medical attention is still required. During this extended period, the employer retains the right to declare that a permanent partial or total disability already exists. In this case, the petitioner's medical treatment lasted for 180 days, which falls within the 240-day limit. Before the expiration of this period, the company-designated doctor issued a final disability grade of 11, which, under the POEA Schedule of Disabilities, represents permanent partial disability, not total and permanent disability. On the award of attorney's fees: The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals in deleting the award of attorney's fees. The private respondents were justified in insisting on the disability assessment of Grade 11, which corresponds to permanent partial disability, and in offering the corresponding benefits. There was no evidence presented to show that the private respondents acted in bad faith in disputing the petitioner's claim for full disability benefits. Their stance was based on the medical findings of their designated physician, which the Court ultimately found to be more credible.
Main Doctrine
The findings of the company-designated doctor, supported by multiple medical tests and examinations conducted over a period of time, deserve greater evidentiary weight than the medical report of the seafarer's chosen physician, especially if the latter's report lacks supporting tests and examinations. A disability lasting more than 120 days does not automatically equate to total and permanent disability; the specific provisions of the POEA-SEC and relevant laws, particularly the 240-day maximum treatment period and the company-designated doctor's final assessment within this period, must be considered.