Lemoncito v. BSM Crew Service Centre Philippines, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Michael Angelo T. Lemoncito was hired as a motor man by BSM Crew Service Centre Philippines, Inc. for its principal, Bernard Schulte Shipmanagement. While on board MV British Ruby, Lemoncito experienced symptoms of fever, cough, and throat discomfort, and his blood pressure elevated significantly. He was medically repatriated and diagnosed by company-designated doctors with lower respiratory tract infection and hypertension, with an interim disability assessment of Grade 12. The company doctors opined that his hypertension was not work-related, attributing it to multifactorial causes. Despite treatment, Lemoncito consulted his own physician, Dr. Antonio Pascual, who diagnosed him with Hypertensive Heart Disease, Stage 2, and Degenerative Osteoarthritis, Thoracic Spine, declaring him unfit to work as a seaman. Procedural History: Disagreeing with the company doctors, Lemoncito filed a complaint for total permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, damages, and attorney's fees before the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA). The PVA ruled in favor of Lemoncito, finding him totally and permanently disabled and ordering the respondents to pay disability benefits. The PVA denied the respondents' motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the PVA's decision, finding the company-designated doctors' assessment more credible and dismissing Lemoncito's complaint. The CA denied Lemoncito's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Lemoncito filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. He argued that his hypertension was work-related, that the company-designated doctors failed to make a final assessment within the 120-day period, and that he substantially complied with the third-doctor-referral rule. He contended that the termination of his medical treatment compelled him to seek his own doctor. Respondents countered that the company doctors' assessment was made within the extended 240-day period, that Lemoncito failed to follow the mandatory third-doctor-referral rule, and that his hypertension was not compensable under the POEA-SEC without organ damage.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Michael Angelo T. Lemoncito can be declared as totally and permanently disabled by reason of his hypertension. Whether the medical assessment of the company-designated doctors was final and binding. Whether the failure of the company-designated doctors to issue a final and definitive assessment within the 120-day period (or 240-day extended period) results in the seafarer's disability being considered total and permanent by operation of law.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision and Resolution of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators are REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of total and permanent disability due to hypertension: The Supreme Court held that petitioner Lemoncito is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The Court found that the medical report dated July 1, 2016, issued by the company-designated doctors, was incomplete and inconclusive. It stated that petitioner's blood pressure was "adequately controlled with medications" and that he was "cleared cardiac wise," but it lacked a categorical statement on his fitness or unfitness to resume work as a seaman. This ambiguity rendered the report inadequate to determine his true condition and capacity to work. On the finality and binding nature of the company-designated doctors' assessment: The Court emphasized that for a medical assessment to be conclusive and binding, it must be final and definitive. The report dated July 1, 2016, failed to meet this standard due to its equivocal language and lack of clear prognosis regarding petitioner's ability to resume his duties. Consequently, this incomplete report had to be set aside. The Court also noted that jurisprudence supports granting permanent total disability compensation to seafarers with cardiovascular diseases or hypertension, even when company-designated doctors issued fit-to-work certifications beyond the prescribed periods, if the assessment remains inconclusive. On the legal consequence of the company-designated doctors' failure to issue a timely and definitive assessment: The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that if the company-designated physician fails to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability within the 120-day period, which may be extended to 240 days, and the seafarer's medical condition remains unresolved, the law presumes the disability to be total and permanent. In this case, the company doctors' final report was deemed inadequate, and no other definitive assessment was provided within the extended period. Therefore, by operation of law, petitioner's disability was considered total and permanent. While acknowledging that in cases of conflict, the labor tribunals and courts assess which assessment is more credible, the Court highlighted that the company-designated doctors' assessment must be complete and definitive to be given weight. The failure to provide such an assessment, as in this case, leads to the application of the legal presumption of total and permanent disability.
Main Doctrine
The failure of the company-designated physician to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability within the prescribed periods (120 days, extendable to 240 days), or if the seafarer's medical condition remains unresolved, the law steps in to consider the seafarer's disability as total and permanent. A medical report that is incomplete and inadequate must be set aside.