Tradephil Shipping Agencies v. Dela Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dante F. Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz), a seafarer, was engaged by Tradephil Shipping Agencies, Inc. (Tradephil) for two contracts. During the second contract, he experienced pain in his left scrotal area, diagnosed as 'Varicocele' in Brazil, with a recommendation for surgery in the Philippines. Upon repatriation, he was seen by the company-designated physician, Dr. Esther G. Go, who diagnosed 'suspicious varicocele, left.' He underwent surgery ('Varicocoelectomy, bilateral') and was discharged. He was then under the care of company-designated urologist, Dr. Darwin Lim. On December 29, 2010, Dr. Lim assessed his condition as 'Grade 12 - slight residual disorder' and recommended a reevaluation on January 4, 2011. Dela Cruz missed this appointment and instead filed a complaint for permanent and total disability benefits on January 6, 2011. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Dela Cruz's complaint for disability benefits, citing his refusal to undergo a third-doctor referral and giving more credence to the company-designated physician's assessment. The LA awarded sick wages and attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's dismissal of disability benefits but modified the award of sick wages and attorney's fees, deleting them based on vouchers showing payment. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC, ruling that Dela Cruz should have been declared totally and permanently disabled based on the 120-day rule under the POEA-SEC, as 136 days had passed since his repatriation without a final declaration of fitness. The CA initially awarded US$60,000.00 but later reduced it to US$5,225.00, considering Dr. Lim's interim assessment. The Petition: Tradephil and Ortega filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the CA erred in departing from the doctrine in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Service, Inc. and in awarding disability benefits and attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a serious error when it rendered a judgment that is not in accord with the applicable decisions of this Honorable Court, specifically regarding the applicability of the 120-day and 240-day rules and the premature filing of the complaint. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a grave error when it reversed the decision of the NLRC and awarded disability benefits and attorney's fees to respondent, specifically regarding the challenge to the company-designated physician's assessment and the third-doctor referral.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed June 28, 2013 Decision and the December 4, 2013 Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The April 2, 2012 Decision and the May 8, 2012 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission are REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of the 120-day and 240-day rules and the premature filing of the complaint: The Court reiterated that the 120-day period for temporary total disability is not absolute and can be extended up to 240 days when circumstances warrant, as established in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Service, Inc. This extension requires sufficient justification. The CA's conclusion that the 240-day rule was not intended for seafarers was deemed misplaced. The Court found that Dela Cruz's ongoing treatment and agreement to a further evaluation constituted sufficient justification for the extension. The Court held that Dela Cruz's complaint filed on January 6, 2011, or 125 days after repatriation, was prematurely filed because the 240-day period had not yet lapsed and Dr. Lim subsequently issued a certification of fitness to work on January 17, 2011, well within the extended 240-day period. A seafarer's cause of action for total and permanent disability benefits accrues only when the company-designated physician fails to issue a declaration within the prescribed periods or upon the lapse of the 240-day period without certification. On the challenge to the company-designated physician's assessment and the third-doctor referral: The Court found that Dela Cruz failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC by consulting his own physician before the company-designated physician could issue a final certification and by refusing to refer the matter to a third doctor. The Court reiterated that non-referral to a third doctor constitutes a breach of the POEA-SEC, and in such cases, the company-designated doctor's certification prevails, especially when it is based on several months of treatment and evaluation, making it more reliable than an assessment from a physician who examined the seafarer only once.
Main Doctrine
The 240-day rule for extending temporary total disability for seafarers is an exception that requires sufficient justification, such as ongoing treatment or uncooperative behavior from the seafarer. Failure to comply with the mandatory referral to a third doctor under the POEA-SEC can result in the company-designated physician's assessment prevailing.