Rodelas v. MST Marine Services (Phils.), Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Roberto Rodelas, Jr. (Rodelas), a seafarer hired as Chief Cook, experienced pain in his lower right abdomen and back. He was diagnosed with lumbar sprain and later with "Chronic Back Pain. HIVD-Herniated Inter Vertebral Disc L4L5 (bulging)[,]" and colon inflammation in South Korea. Upon repatriation, he was referred to company-designated physicians who diagnosed his abdominal condition as "non-specific appendicitis" (resolved) and his back condition as "Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease/Herniated Nucleus Pulposus." The orthopaedic surgeon recommended physical therapy and, if pain persisted, an MRI, which revealed "VENTRAL AND BILATERAL DISC PROTRUSION MORE TOWARDS THE RIGHT SIDE AT L4-5 LEVEL WITH ACCOMPANYING DEGENERATIVE DISC DESSICATION CHANGES AND SLIGHT SPINAL CANAL STENOSIS." Spine surgery was recommended, but Rodelas remained undecided. Procedural History: On September 6, 2014, the company-designated physician assessed Rodelas' back problem as Grade 11 disability ("Slight rigidity of one third (1/3) loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk (back)"). Rodelas sought a second opinion from Dr. Renato P. Runas, who declared him "permanently unfit for sea duty in whatever capacity with a permanent disability." On October 17, 2014, MST Marine terminated Rodelas' treatment due to his indecision and offered him US$14,325.19 based on the Grade 11 assessment. Rodelas rejected the offer. After failed settlement attempts, Rodelas filed a Notice to Arbitrate. The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators awarded him permanent total disability benefits (US$95,949.00) plus attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals modified this, awarding permanent partial disability benefits (US$7,465.00) based on Grade 11 disability. Rodelas filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner Rodelas assails the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing he is entitled to permanent total disability benefits. The core of the dispute revolves around the finality of the company-designated physician's assessment, Rodelas' right to refuse surgery, and the weight given to his second medical opinion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court may resolve factual issues in a petition for review on certiorari. Whether petitioner had a cause of action for disability benefits when the notice to arbitrate was filed. Whether petitioner's refusal to undergo surgery disqualified him from availing disability benefits. Whether petitioner is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the Petition, reversed the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the September 15, 2015 Decision of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. Petitioner Roberto Rodelas, Jr. is awarded permanent total disability benefits amounting to US$95,949.00, plus 10% attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of resolving factual issues in a petition for review on certiorari: The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law. However, it admitted exceptions, including when the findings of fact are conflicting, when the Court of Appeals' findings are contrary to those of the trial court, or when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. In this case, the conflicting findings between the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and the Court of Appeals, and the petitioner's assertion of a misapprehension of facts by the appellate court, warranted a review of the factual aspects. The Court found that the Court of Appeals failed to consider crucial elements such as the termination of treatment due to indecision, the right to consent, the right to a second opinion, and the weakness of the respondent's evidence. On whether petitioner had a cause of action for disability benefits when the notice to arbitrate was filed: The Court held that the company-designated physician had an interim disability grading as early as September 6, 2014. Despite the 120-day period for assessment, the respondent extended the treatment period. The employer's termination of treatment on October 17, 2014, due to the petitioner's indecision, without a final medical assessment, meant that the interim assessment became the definitive one. The respondent was estopped from assailing the finality of its assessment because it offered compensation based on the Grade 11 disability. The Court found the respondent's argument that the lack of a final assessment made the claim premature to be without merit, as the employer's actions led to the situation. On whether petitioner's refusal to undergo surgery disqualified him from availing disability benefits: The Court ruled that seafarers do not lose their right to consent to prescribed medical procedures. The respondent failed to prove that Rodelas' refusal to undergo surgery was unjustified. The company-designated physician himself stated that surgery offered a range of outcomes, from improvement with residual disability to full functional capacity, meaning there was no conclusive proof of full recovery. Furthermore, Rodelas' fear of not returning to sea duties after surgery, based on the company doctor's own explanation of limitations, was a valid reason for his reluctance. The Court emphasized that Section 20.D of the POEA-SEC, which disqualifies seafarers for willful or criminal acts or intentional breach of duties, was not applicable as there was no proof of such actions. The respondent's continued treatment despite the alleged refusal also undermined its claim of disqualification. On whether petitioner is entitled to permanent total disability benefits: The Court reinstated the award of permanent total disability benefits. It found that the company-designated physician's Grade 11 disability assessment and Dr. Runas' assessment of permanent unfitness for sea duty were not incompatible. Dr. Nolasco's assessment focused on the medical significance of the injury, while Dr. Runas considered the impact on the seafarer's work. The Court noted that the risk factors identified by Dr. Nolasco, such as lifting heavy weights, made it improbable for Rodelas to return to his Chief Cook position. Citing jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that disability is linked to earning capacity and that total disability is permanent if it lasts continuously for more than 120 days. Given Rodelas' inability to perform his usual work for over 240 days and the inherent risks of his job, permanent total disability was deemed appropriate. The Court also reinstated the award of attorney's fees, finding that Rodelas was compelled to litigate due to the respondent's refusal to refer the case to a third doctor.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer's refusal to undergo a prescribed medical procedure, absent proof of willful or criminal act or intentional breach of duties, does not disqualify them from claiming disability benefits. The employer's termination of treatment based on the seafarer's indecision, without a final medical assessment, estops the employer from assailing the finality of its interim assessment. A seafarer's right to seek a second medical opinion is recognized, and the findings of their chosen physician can be considered in determining disability claims.