Daraug v. KGJS Fleet Management Manila, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rommel B. Daraug was employed as a motorman by respondent KGJS Fleet Management Manila, Inc. During his first employment, he sustained a fracture of his right fibula and tibia when steel plates fell on his leg. He was medically repatriated, treated by company-designated physicians who declared him fit to work, and he executed a Certificate of Fitness to Work. Subsequently, he was hired for a third time by KGJS for its foreign principal, Kristian Gerhard Jebsen Skipsreder AS, to serve on the M/V Ibis Arrow. While working on this vessel, he slipped and injured his right leg again, diagnosed as a severe bruise/hematoma. He was again medically repatriated and treated by company-designated physicians who declared him fit to work, and he again executed a Certificate of Fitness to Work. Procedural History: Following his second injury, petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents seeking permanent disability benefits, sick wages, damages, and attorney's fees, alleging that both incidents rendered him permanently disabled. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding the company-designated physicians' assessments unreliable and biased, and giving credence to the assessment of petitioner's own doctor, Dr. Manuel C. Jacinto, Jr., who diagnosed an open fracture and unfitness to work. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA's decision, giving more weight to the company-designated physicians' findings and concluding that the petitioner's open fracture must have occurred after he was declared fit to work. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC's ruling, finding the company-designated physicians' prolonged assessment more credible than Dr. Jacinto's single examination. The Petition: Petitioner seeks a review on certiorari of the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in reversing the LA's findings, which he contends should be given high regard. He asserts that his continued difficulty in walking and performing strenuous activities demonstrates his incapacity for sea duties, and that Dr. Jacinto's independent assessment should be given weight over the company-designated physicians, whom he accuses of bias due to retainer fees. Petitioner also imputes bad faith on the respondents regarding a failed settlement agreement. He argues that the CA and NLRC disregarded the LA's factual findings and that his condition renders him permanently disabled. He also prays for the enforcement of the alleged settlement agreement.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner complied with the mandatory procedures under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for claiming permanent disability benefits. Whether the petitioner is entitled to permanent disability compensation, sick wages, damages, and attorney's fees.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory procedures for claiming disability benefits, thus upholding the company-designated physicians' certification of fitness to work. Consequently, the claims for permanent disability compensation, sick wages, damages, and attorney's fees were denied for lack of factual and legal bases.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural compliance for disability benefits: The Court reiterated that the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) govern the employment relationship of seafarers and are binding on both parties. Specifically, Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC and the corresponding CBA provision mandate that in case of conflicting medical assessments between the company-designated physician and the seafarer's physician, a third doctor must be jointly agreed upon, and the third doctor's decision shall be final and binding. The petitioner failed to observe this mandatory procedure by filing a complaint for permanent disability benefits based solely on his physician's assessment without referring the conflicting opinions to a third doctor. This failure to comply with the prescribed mechanism renders the seafarer's claim premature and militates against his claim. The Court emphasized that this procedure is crucial for resolving disability claims at the parties' level, promoting speedier resolution than litigation. The petitioner offered no valid reason for his non-compliance, thus, the certification of fitness to work issued by the company-designated physicians must be upheld. On the entitlement to permanent disability compensation, sick wages, damages, and attorney's fees: Based on the failure to comply with the procedural requirements for disability claims, the Court found that the petitioner was not entitled to permanent disability benefits. The Court noted that permanent total disability is defined as the disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same or similar kind of work, or any work that a person of his mentality and attainment could do. Since the company-designated physicians declared the petitioner fit to work, and he subsequently found gainful employment with another company, it was evident that he was not incapacitated to earn wages. The Court also found no factual or legal basis for the claims for sick wages, damages, and attorney's fees, as the petitioner's claim for disability benefits was denied. The respondents had already paid sick wages until the petitioner was declared fit to work, and there was no showing of bad faith or unjustifiable refusal to give what was due him under the circumstances. The Court also pointed out that the petitioner's independent physician examined him for only one day, and the medical certificate failed to state the basis for its conclusion, thus, it could not prevail over the findings of the company-designated physicians who had extensive knowledge of his condition.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer's claim for permanent disability benefits is subject to the procedural requirements outlined in the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), including the mandatory referral to a third doctor in case of conflicting medical assessments. Failure to comply with these procedures, particularly the non-referral to a third doctor, renders the seafarer's claim premature and upholds the certification of the company-designated physician.