Guadalquiver v. Sea Power Shipping Enterprise
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ruel L. Guadalquiver was employed as an Able Seaman aboard the vessel M/V Dimi under a contract with Sea Power Shipping Enterprise, Inc. (Sea Power) and its principal, Mississauga Enterprises, Inc. (Mississauga). Petitioner alleged that in November 2012, he sustained a lower back injury while lifting a heavy object. He was medically repatriated on September 19, 2013, and consulted the company-designated doctor, Dr. Jose Emmanuel E. Gonzales (Dr. Gonzales). Dr. Gonzales diagnosed him with lumbo-sacral muscle strain and advised physical therapy. Despite initial improvement and an assurance of a fit-to-work certification after six therapy sessions, petitioner failed to report back for his scheduled physical therapy. Dr. Gonzales declared petitioner abandoned his treatment and issued a final diagnosis of "Lumbo Sacral Muscle Strain with Myositis S/P Physical Therapy." Petitioner consulted his own physician, Dr. Manuel Fidel M. Magtira (Dr. Magtira), who declared him unfit to work. Petitioner sought disability benefits, which were denied. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for permanent and total disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of petitioner, awarding permanent and total disability benefits, opining that the personal doctor's declaration outweighed the company-designated doctor's opinion and that the 120-day period without work amounted to permanent and total disability. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC, holding that petitioner was duty-bound to complete his medical treatment and that his failure to do so constituted medical abandonment, making his claim premature. The CA awarded income benefit and partial disability benefit. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that the CA erred in holding him guilty of medical abandonment and in disregarding evidence proving his entitlement to disability benefits. He contended that he did not abandon treatment and that the company-designated doctor failed to issue a certification within 120 days.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner committed medical abandonment. Whether petitioner is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits. Whether the filing of the complaint was premature.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of medical abandonment: The Court held that petitioner committed medical abandonment by failing to report back for his scheduled physical therapy with the company-designated doctor. At the time of his last treatment on February 28, 2014, petitioner was on his 162nd day of treatment, and the 240-day maximum period for the company-designated doctor to issue a definitive declaration had not yet lapsed. The assurance of a fit-to-work certification after completing therapy, which petitioner failed to pursue, further supports the finding of abandonment. The Court reiterated that a seafarer must complete medical treatment until declared fit or until the disability is assessed within the prescribed periods. On the entitlement to permanent and total disability benefits: The Court found that petitioner was not entitled to permanent and total disability benefits because his claim was prematurely filed. The entitlement to permanent and total disability benefits arises only when the company-designated doctor declares the seafarer permanently and totally disabled within the 120 or 240-day period, or when the 240-day period lapses without any declaration. Since neither condition was met at the time of filing, and petitioner failed to complete his treatment, he could not claim permanent and total disability. The opinion of petitioner's physician-of-choice, while permissible, cannot be the basis for a claim when the company-designated physician has not yet issued a definitive assessment and the seafarer has not completed the prescribed treatment. On the issue of premature filing and the weight of medical opinions: The Court held that the complaint was filed on March 31, 2014, only 193 days after repatriation, which was still within the 240-day period. Therefore, petitioner's cause of action had not yet accrued, rendering the filing of the suit premature. The Court emphasized that while a seafarer has the right to seek a second opinion from a physician of choice, this right is generally availed of on the presumption that the company-designated doctor has already issued a definite declaration on the seafarer's condition, and the seafarer finds it disagreeable. In this case, without a definitive certification from the company-designated doctor and with petitioner's failure to complete his treatment, the assessment of his personal doctor could not be given precedence. The Court noted that the company-designated doctor did issue a final diagnosis and a Grade 11 disability rating within the allowable period.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer is considered permanently and totally disabled when declared so by the company-designated doctor within the 120 or 240-day period, or after the lapse of 240 days without any declaration. Premature filing of a disability claim before the expiration of the 240-day period, without a definitive declaration from the company-designated physician, renders the cause of action premature, especially when the seafarer failed to complete prescribed medical treatment.