Maersk-Filipinas Crewing v. Jaleco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Rommel Rene O. Jaleco was hired as an Able Bodied Seaman by petitioner Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. (Maersk) on behalf of its principal, A.P. Moller A/S (Moller). Respondent complained of back and leg pain in February 2007. He was examined in Singapore and Dubai, where he was diagnosed with suspected prolapsed intervertebral disc and acute lumbago with left-sided sciatica, respectively, and declared unfit for duty. He was repatriated on May 1, 2007. Procedural History: Upon repatriation, respondent was treated by the company-designated physician, Dr. Natalio Alegre II. Despite various treatments and diagnostic tests, including MRI, EMG-NCV, and provocative discography, respondent continued to experience pain. Dr. Alegre recommended a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 2 Test (MMPI-2) to rule out malingering, which indicated that respondent was malingering and exaggerating his symptoms. Dr. Alegre assessed respondent's disability as Grade 11. Respondent consulted independent physicians, Dr. Ramon Santos-Ocampo and Dr. Alan Leonardo R. Raymundo, who provided different assessments, with Dr. Raymundo declaring him unfit for duty and giving a Grade 6 disability rating. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of benefits, and damages before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondent, awarding total disability benefits and attorney's fees. The NLRC modified the decision, awarding only Grade 11 disability benefits (US$7,465.00) and deleting attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC, granting US$60,000.00 for Impediment Grade 1 and attorney's fees, citing Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad. The CA found that the company-designated physician failed to make a categorical declaration of fitness to resume sea duty. The Petition: Petitioners Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. and A.P. Moller A/S filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. They argued that the CA erred in applying Crystal Shipping and misinterpreting Jesus Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., and in awarding attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting permanent total disability benefits to the respondent. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding attorney's fees.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the Petition. It reversed and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court ruled that respondent is entitled only to disability benefits corresponding to a Grade 11 disability rating (US$7,465.00) as determined by the company-designated physician, and deleted the award of attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to permanent total disability benefits: The Court found that the company-designated physician, Dr. Alegre, made a categorical declaration of respondent's disability rating as Grade 11 approximately 127 days from his repatriation. The Court emphasized that the mere lapse of the 120-day treatment period does not automatically warrant permanent total disability benefits, as this period can be extended up to 240 days. Crucially, the Court highlighted that the parties failed to observe the mandatory procedure under Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, which requires the referral of conflicting medical assessments to a third doctor whose opinion shall be final and binding. Because respondent pursued his claim without this mandatory step, the company-designated physician's assessment, which indicated malingering and a Grade 11 disability, must prevail. The Court reiterated that the failure to refer the conflicting opinions to a third doctor constitutes a breach of contractual obligation and prevents the seafarer's chosen physician's opinion from overriding the company-designated physician's assessment. On the award of attorney's fees: The Court deleted the award of attorney's fees, finding the respondent's complaint to be unfounded. Since the Court reinstated the NLRC's decision which found the respondent not entitled to permanent total disability benefits and attorney's fees, the basis for such an award was removed.
Main Doctrine
The failure to observe the mandatory procedure of referring conflicting medical assessments to a third doctor under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, when the company-designated physician issues a fit-to-work certification or a disability grading, results in the company-designated physician's assessment prevailing. The mere lapse of the 120-day treatment period does not automatically grant permanent total disability benefits.