BW Shipping Philippines v. Ong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Mario H. Ong was employed by petitioner BW Shipping Philippines, Inc. multiple times over nine years, most recently as Chief Steward and Chief Cook. During his March 19, 2008 contract, he was declared fit for sea duty. However, on June 8, 2008, he experienced symptoms including dizziness, nausea, headache, and shortness of breath, leading to a diagnosis of uncontrolled diabetes and hypertension. He was repatriated and underwent medical evaluation by company-designated physicians. Procedural History: After being declared fit to resume sea duties by company physicians on October 2, 2008, respondent sought a second opinion, which diagnosed him with Essential Hypertension, Stage 2, and Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2. When the petitioner refused to cover medication costs, respondent filed a complaint for permanent disability benefits, medical reimbursement, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondent, awarding disability benefits and attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision, and the Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently denied the petitioners' petition for certiorari, upholding the NLRC's resolutions. The Petition: Petitioners BW Shipping Philippines, Inc., BW Gas ASA/Norway, and/or Rolando C. Adorable filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They seek to annul the CA's decision and resolution, arguing that the CA erred in affirming the labor tribunals' findings that the respondent is entitled to permanent total disability benefits. The petitioners contend that the respondent failed to adequately prove that his illnesses were work-related and resulted in permanent total disability, and that he did not follow the proper conflict-resolution procedure outlined in the POEA-SEC.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC's finding that respondent is entitled to permanent total disability benefits, considering the medical findings and conflict-resolution procedure. Whether respondent's illnesses, diabetes mellitus and essential hypertension, are work-related and have rendered him permanently and totally disabled, considering the weight of medical evidence and interpretation of 'fit to work'.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals and DISMISSED respondent Mario H. Ong's complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and entitlement to permanent total disability benefits: The Court found no basis to grant permanent and total disability benefits for respondent's diabetes mellitus and hypertension. The entitlement of a seafarer to disability benefits is governed by medical findings, law, and contract, specifically the POEA-SEC. To be entitled, the illness must be work-related and must have existed during the employment contract. Diabetes mellitus is not an occupational disease under the POEA-SEC and is ordinarily acquired through inheritance, obesity, or old age, not directly work-related, unless proven otherwise by substantial evidence. Essential hypertension is an occupational disease, but it must be of such nature as to indicate impairment of body organ functions, resulting in permanent disability, which must be substantiated by real and substantial evidence. The respondent failed to demonstrate how his work responsibilities led to his illnesses or to substantiate that his hypertension rendered him permanently and totally disabled. Furthermore, under Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC, a seafarer must signify their intention to resolve a conflicting medical assessment by referring the disagreement to a third doctor jointly agreed upon by the parties, whose decision is final. The respondent failed to comply with this mandatory procedure by filing a complaint before the Labor Arbiter instead of initiating the conflict-resolution mechanism. Consequently, on account of this failure, the diagnosis of the company-designated physician must be upheld. On the issue of whether the illnesses are work-related and have rendered him permanently and totally disabled: After repatriation, respondent was attended to by company-designated physicians for months, undergoing tests and receiving treatment. On October 2, 2008, the company-designated physician certified him as fit to resume sea duties. The respondent did not immediately contest this finding but consulted his own physician over three months later. The company-designated physicians' diagnoses were supported by laboratory tests, which yielded normal results, and thus, their findings were given greater weight. The respondent's physician's certificate, stating 'Essential Hypertension, Stage 2 and diabetes mellitus, type 2, with no prior history,' lacked adequate factual or medical support compared to the extensive medical attention and documented tests provided by the company-designated physicians. The Court clarified that the company-designated physician's prescription for respondent to continue taking anti-hypertensive medications did not belie the finding that he was fit to work, as controlled hypertension is manageable with medication and lifestyle changes. Furthermore, the extent of disability is judged not by the number of days unable to work but by the disability grading given by the doctor based on the resulting incapacity to work and earn wages. The Court gives significant weight to timely medical evaluations by physicians in determining entitlement to disability benefits.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer's entitlement to permanent total disability benefits requires proof that the illness is work-related and existed during the employment contract. The diagnosis of company-designated physicians, especially when supported by tests and after a period of treatment, generally holds greater weight. Failure to follow the prescribed conflict-resolution procedure under the POEA-SEC, specifically the referral to a third doctor, can lead to the upholding of the company-designated physician's assessment.