Maersk-Filipinas Crewing v. Alferos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Edgar S. Alferos, employed as an Able Seaman by petitioners Maersk-Filipinas Crewing Inc. and A.P. Moller A/S since 1995, experienced a sudden onset of lower back and abdominal pain, accompanied by difficulty and pain during urination, while on duty aboard the vessel M/S Laura Maersk in December 2012. Initially diagnosed with dysuria, loin pain, and back pain in Dubai, his condition worsened despite treatment, leading to his medical repatriation on January 12, 2013. The company-designated physicians treated him for prostatitis and ruled out urolithiasis, eventually declaring him fit to resume sea duties on March 5, 2013. However, Alferos, feeling unfit, sought further evaluation, which led to diagnoses of kidney stones, vertigo, nephrolithiasis, diabetic nephropathy, osteoarthritis, lumbosacral spine radiculopathy, and benign positional vertigo, with a physician declaring him unfit to return to work as a seafarer. Procedural History: Following his medical repatriation and subsequent independent medical assessments, Edgar S. Alferos filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) seeking permanent disability compensation, sick wages, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Alferos, awarding him US$60,000.00 in permanent total disability benefits and attorney's fees. The NLRC affirmed this decision on appeal. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion by relying on the assessment of Alferos's physician and disregarding the company-designated physician's fitness-to-work declaration and the POEA-Standard Employment Contract's (POEA-SEC) third-doctor appointment procedure. The CA dismissed the petition, upholding the NLRC's ruling. The Petition: The petitioners, Maersk-Filipinas Crewing Inc. and A.P. Moller A/S, seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision, contending that the CA erred in upholding the NLRC's award of disability benefits. They argue that the CA disregarded Section 20-A(3) of the POEA-SEC, which mandates a joint appointment of a third physician to resolve conflicting medical assessments between the company-designated physician and the seafarer's physician. The petitioners assert that Alferos failed to notify them of his intent to seek a third physician's opinion, rendering his claim premature and making the company-designated physician's assessment controlling. They argue that the CA's reliance on Alferos's physician's assessment, without adherence to the third-doctor procedure, constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the National Labor Relations Commission's decision which relied on the assessment of the respondent's physician of choice, disregarding the procedure for a third physician's opinion under the POEA-Standard Employment Contract, and whether the respondent's claim for disability benefits was premature due to non-compliance with the third physician referral procedure.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition for review on certiorari, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and dismissed the respondent's claim for disability benefits, sick wages, damages, and attorney's fees for lack of factual and legal basis.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the controlling medical assessment and the prematurity of the claim: The Court held that under the POEA-SEC, the assessment of the company-designated physician on the seafarer's fitness or unfitness for work is controlling. If a physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees with this assessment, a third physician must be jointly agreed upon by both parties, and the third physician's decision shall be final and binding. The records did not indicate that the parties jointly sought the opinion of a third physician. The respondent's failure to give notice to the petitioners of his intent to submit himself to a third physician for evaluation negated the need for such determination and rendered his claim premature. The Court emphasized that the duty to secure the opinion of a third doctor belongs to the employee asking for disability benefits; he must actively or expressly request for it. Without this notice, the company-designated physician's assessment remains the controlling and only reliable medical assessment. The Court further clarified that the physical examination at Supercare was for re-employment purposes and not equivalent to the required notification process for a conflicting medical opinion under the POEA-SEC. Therefore, the respondent's claim, predicated on his physician's assessment without complying with the mandatory third-physician referral procedure, was bereft of basis.
Main Doctrine
The assessment of the company-designated physician on the seafarer's condition is controlling unless the seafarer signifies his intent to submit the disputed assessment to a third physician, following the procedure outlined in the POEA-Standard Employment Contract. Failure to do so renders the claim premature and the company-designated physician's assessment prevails.