Abundo v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jherome G. Abundo, a former Able Seaman, was employed by Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and Grand Celebration LDA. While securing a lifeboat on December 15, 2012, a metal block struck his right forearm, causing an overriding fracture. He received initial treatment on board and was repatriated on January 7, 2013, for further medical attention. The company-designated physician diagnosed an overriding fracture of the right radius and performed surgery, followed by physiotherapy. Subsequent assessments noted weak grip, paresthesia in the right thumb, and left wrist pain, leading to an interim disability assessment of Grade 10. Procedural History: The petitioner sought an independent medical opinion, which found him unfit for his previous occupation as a seafarer due to persistent weakness, pain, and restricted range of motion in his right arm. Based on this, he claimed permanent disability benefits. The respondents offered a lesser amount, equivalent to a Grade 10 disability. The petitioner filed a labor complaint, which the Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, awarding US$60,000.00 in permanent disability benefits. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC's ruling, finding that the petitioner's failure to refer the conflicting medical opinions to a third doctor rendered the company-designated physician's assessment controlling, and awarded US$10,075.00. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the CA erred in reversing the NLRC's decision, particularly in its application of the third-doctor referral rule. He contends that his disability is permanent and total by operation of law due to the company-designated physician's failure to issue a final and categorical assessment within the prescribed 120/240-day period. The petitioner asserts that the third-doctor referral is not mandatory when there is no definitive assessment from the company doctor, and that disability should be based on incapacity to work. He also seeks attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC's Decision regarding the application of the third-doctor referral rule and the re-evaluation of facts. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a serious mistake in its application of the POEA-SEC conflict-resolution procedure regarding the third physician referral, specifically concerning the mandatory nature of the rule and the requirement of a final and categorical assessment. Whether the petitioner is considered totally and permanently disabled by operation of law due to the failure of the company-designated physician to issue a final and definitive assessment within the prescribed period, rendering the "third physician referral rule" inapplicable, and the consequences regarding disability benefits and attorney's fees.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondents are ordered to jointly and severally pay petitioner Jherome G. Abundo the amount of US$60,000.00 or its equivalent in Philippine currency, representing total and permanent disability benefits, plus US$1,000.00 or its equivalent as attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction and re-evaluation of facts: While findings of fact of administrative agencies like the NLRC are generally accorded great weight and respect, this rule admits exceptions. The CA acted within its jurisdiction when it reversed the NLRC's ruling that the third-doctor-referral rule is merely directory, as this ruling was clearly erroneous based on established jurisprudence. The CA also correctly exercised its power to re-evaluate facts when it found that the NLRC's judgment was based on a misapprehension of facts and overlooked relevant facts. On the mandatory nature of the third-doctor referral rule and the requirement of a final assessment: The referral to a third doctor as provided in Section 20(A)(3) of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) is indeed mandatory in cases of disagreement between the company-designated physician and the seafarer's chosen physician. However, this rule is contingent upon a final and categorical assessment by the company-designated physician within the 120/240-day period. The CA erred in strictly applying this rule without considering whether such a definitive assessment was made. On the determination of permanent and total disability, the inapplicability of the third-doctor referral rule, and the award of benefits and fees: Because the company-designated physician failed to issue a final and definitive assessment within the 240-day period, the petitioner was deemed permanently disabled by operation of law. Therefore, the rule on third-doctor referral became inapplicable, as there was no definitive assessment to settle. The petitioner was not compelled to seek a third doctor's opinion when the company physicians themselves did not provide a conclusive diagnosis within the statutory periods. Given that the petitioner was deemed permanently disabled by operation of law, he is entitled to the maximum disability benefit of US$60,000.00 under the POEA-SEC. Furthermore, attorney's fees are awarded because the petitioner was forced to litigate to protect his rights, although the respondents' bad faith in denying the claim was not sufficiently proven to warrant a higher amount. An award of US$1,000.00 for attorney's fees was deemed reasonable.
Main Doctrine
The failure of the company-designated physician to issue a final and definitive disability assessment within the 120/240-day period results in the seafarer being deemed totally and permanently disabled by operation of law, rendering the third-doctor referral rule inapplicable.