Abosta Shipmanagement v. Delos Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Rodel D. Delos Reyes was employed as a bosun by petitioner Abosta Shipmanagement Corp. (Abosta) on March 30, 2010. He was declared fit to work after a Pre-Employment Medical Examination. In July 2010, he complained of groin pain and was diagnosed with Inguinal Hernia in Korea. He was repatriated on August 1, 2010, and examined by the company-designated physician. On August 23, 2010, he underwent surgery for right inguinal herniorrhaphy with mesh imposition. He was discharged on August 25, 2010, paid two months' sickness allowance, and on September 2, 2010, declared fit to work by the company-designated physician. Procedural History: On July 19, 2011, respondent consulted Dr. Li-Ann Lara-Orencia, who declared him permanently unfit to work with a Grade 1 disability, stating hernia is an occupational disease and recurrence is possible, thus preventing him from returning to his former work as Bosun. Consequently, on July 20, 2011, respondent filed a complaint for Disability Benefits, Damages, and Attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, giving more credence to the company-designated physician's assessment due to the extended treatment period. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the company-designated physician's assessment prevailed and respondent failed to seek a third doctor's opinion as per the POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC). The Petition: Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the NLRC's decision, finding respondent entitled to total and permanent disability compensation based on Dr. Orencia's assessment. The CA ordered petitioners to pay disability benefits and attorney's fees. Petitioners filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that Dr. Orencia's assessment was not credible, that the company-designated physician's assessment should prevail, and assailing the award of attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the medical assessment of Dr. Orencia over that of the company-designated physician, considering the respondent's failure to refer the conflicting medical assessments to a third doctor. Whether respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits despite failing to refer the conflicting medical assessments to a third doctor.
Ruling
The Petition is meritorious. The assailed March 26, 2014 Decision and the October 28, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 127545 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent's Complaint for Disability Benefits, Damages, and Attorney's fees is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' credence to Dr. Orencia's assessment: The Court ruled that the CA should not have given credence to Dr. Orencia's medical report because the respondent failed to notify the petitioners or refer the conflicting assessments to a third doctor, as mandated by Section 20 (B) (3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC. The Court emphasized that in the absence of a third doctor's opinion, the medical assessment of the company-designated physician should prevail. Furthermore, the Court found the company-designated physician's assessment more reliable as it was based on actual treatment and medical evaluation, showing a successful surgery, unlike Dr. Orencia's assessment, which merely quoted medical definitions without a thorough personal evaluation of the respondent's condition post-surgery. The assessment of the company-designated physician is more credible for having been arrived at after months of medical attendance and diagnosis, compared with the assessment of a private physician done in one day on the basis of an examination or existing medical records. On the issue of entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits: The Court ruled in the negative. It reiterated that in cases of conflicting medical assessments, referral to a third doctor is mandatory under Section 20 (B) (3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC. The seafarer must signify his intention to resolve the conflict by referring the matter to a third doctor, whose decision shall be final and binding. In this case, the respondent consulted Dr. Orencia, whose assessment conflicted with that of the company-designated physician, but failed to notify the petitioners or refer the matter to a third doctor. Therefore, the respondent was not entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.
Main Doctrine
In cases of conflicting medical assessments between the company-designated physician and a seafarer's doctor of choice, referral to a third doctor is mandatory. Failure to refer the conflicting assessments to a third doctor renders the medical assessment of the company-designated physician prevailing.