Sharp Crew Management v. Orbeta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Noel N. Orbeta was hired as an Able Seaman. While on duty, he slipped and fell, sustaining an injury. He was later diagnosed with acute lumbago and repatriated. Upon repatriation, he underwent medical examination and treatment by the company-designated physician, who initially suspected a compression fracture but later diagnosed him with "lumbosacral muscular spasm with mild spondylosis L3-L4" and gave a Grade 10 partial disability rating. The company physician recommended further tests, including a bone scan. Procedural History: Instead of undergoing the recommended bone scan and further treatment, respondent filed a complaint for permanent and total disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter found the disability gradings of both the company-designated doctor and the independent physician inappropriate and awarded disability benefits equivalent to Disability Grade 6. The NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter's decision, granting total and permanent disability benefits based on the CBA, but deleted the award of attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC's decision. The Supreme Court, in its final decision, reversed the CA and NLRC, reinstating the Labor Arbiter's decision. The Petition: Petitioners C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., its President, and Gulf Energy Maritime filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that respondent is not automatically entitled to permanent total disability benefits, that he violated his obligations under the POEA-SEC by abandoning treatment, and that in the absence of a third doctor's assessment, the company-designated physician's assessment should prevail.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent is automatically entitled to total permanent disability benefits simply because his back condition was not resolved after 120 days, and whether he violated his obligations under the POEA-SEC by abandoning his treatment with the company-designated doctors. Whether respondent violated his obligations under the POEA-SEC by abandoning his treatment with the company-designated doctors. Whether, in the absence of a medical finding by a third doctor, the assessment of the company-designated orthopedic surgeon is controlling.
Ruling
The Petition is GRANTED IN PART. The assailed October 18, 2013 Decision and January 28, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The February 23, 2011 Decision of Labor Arbiter Catalino R. Laderas is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to total permanent disability benefits and medical abandonment: The Court held that a seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total only when declared by the company-designated physician, or, in the absence of such declaration, upon the lapse of the 120- or 240-day treatment periods while the disability continues and the seafarer is unable to engage in gainful employment. The mere lapse of the 120-day period does not automatically warrant permanent total disability benefits. In this case, respondent underwent treatment for 126 days. The company physician provided a temporary diagnosis and recommended further tests, indicating that the condition needed further attention. Respondent, instead of completing the recommended treatment and tests, consulted an independent physician and filed a labor complaint. The Court found this premature. The company-designated physician and the independent physician both recommended further tests, indicating that the condition was not yet fully resolved. The Court agreed with the petitioners that respondent abandoned treatment, as the company physician is given up to 240 days to treat the seafarer. The independent physician's diagnosis was also considered incomplete and inconclusive as it required further tests. The Court cited previous rulings in New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. v. Despabeladeras, Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, and Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. Quillao to support the principle that medical abandonment and premature filing of a complaint negate the claim for disability benefits. On the violation of obligations under the POEA-SEC: The Court found that respondent violated his obligations under the POEA-SEC by abandoning his treatment. Under the contract, the company physician is given up to 240 days to treat the seafarer and make an assessment. By discontinuing treatment and filing a complaint before the lapse of this period and before a final assessment was made, respondent prevented the company physician from determining his fitness to work or assessing his disability. The Court reiterated that Section 20(D) of the POEA-SEC states that no compensation and benefits shall be payable for injury resulting from willful or criminal act or intentional breach of duties, which includes the willful discontinuance of medical treatment. On the controlling assessment in the absence of a third doctor's opinion: The Court noted that while the opinion of a third doctor is not always mandatory, the conflicting assessments of the company-designated physician and the independent physician both indicated the need for further tests. The company-designated physician's assessment, though temporary, was part of an ongoing treatment process. The independent physician's assessment, which also recommended further tests, was considered incomplete and inconclusive. The Court found that the Labor Arbiter's original findings, which considered the circumstances and the degree of injury, were more appropriate, leading to the reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter's decision awarding disability benefits equivalent to Disability Grade 6.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer's claim for permanent total disability benefits is premature if filed before the lapse of the 240-day treatment period or before the company-designated physician issues a final assessment, especially if the seafarer abandons treatment. The mere lapse of the 120-day period does not automatically grant permanent total disability benefits.