Murillo v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Geminiano S. Murillo, a Filipino seafarer, was employed by Norwegian Crew Management A/S through its manning agent, Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. While working as an able seaman aboard the vessel "THORSCAPE," he sustained an injury to both knees on January 12, 2013, while securing a lifeboat. He was diagnosed with "ostheoarthritis" and repatriated for medical reasons. Upon his return, he underwent treatment under the company-designated physician, Dr. Robert D. Lim, who assessed his disability as "Grade 10 x 2 - stretching leg or ligaments of a knee." The petitioner disagreed with this assessment and consulted his personal physician, Dr. Rogelio P. Catapang, who declared him permanently unfit for sea duties. Consequently, the petitioner filed a complaint for disability benefits, illness allowance, medical expenses, damages, and attorney's fees. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner, awarding him US$90,000.00 and US$2,983.37, plus attorney's fees. The respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, finding that the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory procedure of referring conflicting medical opinions to a third doctor, annulled and set aside the NLRC decision, dismissing the complaint. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: The petitioner seeks reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution, arguing that the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC were based on substantial evidence, that the appellate court misappreciated the company-designated physician's assessment, and that the rule on referral to a third doctor is not mandatory. The petitioner filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, contending that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion. He argues that the appellate court erred in completely dismissing his complaint, despite acknowledging the credibility of the company-designated physician's assessment, and that he is entitled to disability benefits based on the established disability grading.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in annulling and setting aside the NLRC decision and dismissing the complaint, considering the mandatory nature of referral to a third doctor. Whether the LA and NLRC Decisions were promulgated on the basis of substantial evidence and could no longer be overturned, particularly regarding the assessment of the company-designated physician and the subsequent dismissal of the complaint. Whether the appellate court misappreciated the assessment of the company-designated physician, specifically regarding the entitlement to disability benefits. Whether the appellate court erred in reiterating that the rule on the referral to a third doctor as a method of conflict-resolution is mandatory, and its impact on the finality of the company-designated physician's assessment.
Ruling
The petition is partly granted. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is modified. Petitioner Geminiano S. Murillo is declared entitled to US$20,150.00, or its peso equivalent, representing disability compensation for the injury to both knees. Respondents are declared jointly and severally liable for this amount. Petitioner is directed to return any amount received in excess thereof.
Ratio Decidendi
On the mandatory nature of referral to a third doctor and the Court of Appeals' grave abuse of discretion: The Court reiterated that the referral to a third doctor is a mandatory procedure under Section 20 of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). This procedure is crucial for resolving conflicting medical assessments between the company-designated physician and the seafarer's chosen physician. Failure by the seafarer to initiate this process, despite disagreeing with the company-designated physician's assessment, constitutes a breach of the POEA-SEC. Consequently, the assessment of the company-designated physician becomes final and binding on the parties. The Court found that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in completely dismissing the complaint, given the existing Grade 10 disability assessment. On the Court of Appeals' misappreciation of the company-designated physician's assessment and dismissal of the complaint: The Court found that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in completely dismissing the complaint. While the CA correctly noted the petitioner's failure to refer the conflicting medical opinions to a third doctor, it contradicted itself by also stating that the company-designated physician's assessment was more credible due to multiple check-ups, as opposed to the petitioner's physician's single check-up. The CA's dispositive portion, which annulled the NLRC decision and dismissed the complaint entirely, effectively denied the petitioner any disability benefits, despite acknowledging the company-designated physician's finding of a Grade 10 disability. This was deemed an error, as the CA should have awarded compensation based on the company-designated physician's assessment. On the entitlement to disability benefits: Based on the company-designated physician's assessment of "Grade 10 x 2 - stretching leg or ligaments of a knee," and considering that both knees were affected, the Court applied Section 32 of the POEA-SEC. This section assigns a Grade 10 disability for "Stretching leg of the ligaments of a knee resulting in instability of the joint." The corresponding disability allowance for Grade 10 is 20.15% of US$50,000.00. Since both knees were affected, the total entitlement was calculated as US$10,075.00 multiplied by two, amounting to US$20,150.00. This amount represents the compensation due to the petitioner for the injury sustained during his employment. On the mandatory nature of referral to a third doctor and its impact on the finality of the company-designated physician's assessment: The Court emphasized that this rule has been consistently applied in numerous previous cases, underscoring its importance in the contractual relationship between seafarers and their employers. The failure to initiate the third doctor referral process results in the company-designated physician's assessment becoming final and binding.
Main Doctrine
The referral to a third doctor to resolve conflicting medical assessments between the company-designated physician and the seafarer's physician is a mandatory procedure under the POEA-SEC. Failure to comply with this procedure renders the assessment of the company-designated physician final and binding. However, if the Court of Appeals completely dismisses the complaint despite acknowledging the company-designated physician's assessment of a disability, it commits reversible error.