Pacific Ocean Manning v. Solacito
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Roger P. Solacito, an Able Seaman, was hired by Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. for its principal, Industria Armamento Meridionale. During his deployment, Solacito alleged that an insect lodged in his left ear, causing pain and irritation. He was off-boarded for treatment and subsequently repatriated. The company-designated physician diagnosed him with chronic otitis media aggravated by a perforated eardrum, recommending surgery. After undergoing surgery and subsequent medical evaluations, the company-designated physicians declared him fit for sea duty, noting a moderate hearing loss in his left ear but no overall disability according to established criteria. 2. Procedural History: Solacito filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, awarding benefits based on the assessment of his personal physician. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the ruling but reduced the award. The Court of Appeals (CA) granted a petition for certiorari, annulling the NLRC decision and awarding permanent partial disability benefits, finding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in prioritizing the personal physician's assessment over the company-designated physicians'. The CA's decision was then challenged before the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The petitioners argue that the CA erred in finding Solacito to be suffering from permanent and partial disability and in its calculation of the amounts due. They contend that Solacito is not suffering from any disability, as evidenced by the company-designated physicians' reports and his subsequent re-deployment, and therefore is not entitled to any disability benefits. The Supreme Court is asked to determine the validity of the medical assessments and the entitlement to disability benefits.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA erred in finding Solacito suffering from permanent and partial disability. Whether the CA erred in the calculation of the amounts due to be returned to petitioners.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled and set aside the CA's decision and resolution, and dismissed Solacito's complaint. Respondent Solacito was directed to return to petitioners the total amount of P2,722,000.00, representing the disability benefits and attorney's fees erroneously paid, with 6% interest per annum from the finality of the decision until full payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of permanent and partial disability: The Court found merit in the petition, reiterating that a Rule 45 petition is limited to reviewing grave abuse of discretion. The CA correctly found grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC for upholding the personal physician's assessment over the company-designated physicians'. However, the CA erred in independently awarding partial and permanent disability benefits because Solacito's complaint was prematurely filed, and he failed to comply with Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC by not seeking a third doctor. This made the company-designated physician's assessment (fit to work) controlling. The determination of a seafarer's fitness is the province of the company-designated physician, and courts cannot prescribe contrary disability ratings. The company-designated physicians' final assessment was issued within the 240-day period, thus, Solacito had no basis to claim total or partial permanent disability. On the calculation of amounts due: Given that Solacito's complaint was unfounded and there was no basis for attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, the Court found that petitioners were entitled to the return of the P2,722,000.00 paid during the execution proceedings. Restitution is in order in cases of reversal of an executed judgment. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum was imposed on the total monetary award from the finality of the decision until full payment.
Main Doctrine
The assessment of the company-designated physician prevails when the seafarer fails to comply with the procedure outlined in the POEA-SEC for disputing such assessment, specifically by not signifying intent to refer conflicting findings to a third doctor. Premature filing of a complaint for disability benefits without a valid basis also warrants dismissal.