Mabalot v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Edgardo I. Mabalot (Mabalot) filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees against respondents Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. and/or A.P. Moller A/S. Mabalot was employed as an Able Seaman and was medically fit at the start of his contract. During his voyage, he experienced pain in his left shoulder and was diagnosed with "Omarthritis" and later "Frozen Shoulder Left" by the company-designated physician, Dr. Natalio G. Alegre II. An MRI revealed supraspinatus and subscapularis tendinosis, attenuated anterior labrum, and minimal subacromial-subdeltoid bursitis. Dr. Alegre recommended arthroscopic surgery, but Mabalot sought a second opinion. Dr. Alegre issued an interim Grade 11 disability assessment, noting Mabalot's inability to raise his arm and recommending continued physical therapy and consultation with a Rehabilitation Medicine Specialist. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that Mabalot was entitled only to Grade 11 disability benefits, giving more weight to the company-designated physician's assessment. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA, awarding permanent total disability benefits, finding that Mabalot's disability was total and permanent due to the lapse of over 120 days without a declaration of fitness and his continued limited mobility. The Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the LA's decision, holding that the company-designated physician's assessment should prevail and that Mabalot's disability was only Grade 11 partial disability. The Petition: Mabalot assails the CA's decision, arguing that it committed palpable error and grave abuse of discretion in modifying the NLRC's ruling and giving credence to the company-designated physician's assessment. He contends that he is unfit for work and that the NLRC's decision had become final and executory.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed palpable error and grave abuse of discretion when it modified the NLRC's ruling. Whether the Court of Appeals committed palpable error, grave abuse of discretion, and arbitrariness when it gave credence to the company-designated physician's assessment over the seafarer's physician. Whether the Court of Appeals committed palpable error and grave abuse of discretion when it did not consider that the petitioner is indeed rendered totally unfit for work and unfit for work for more than 240 days.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution are affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals committed palpable error and grave abuse of discretion when it modified the NLRC's ruling: The Court held that a ruling of the NLRC can be reviewed by the CA through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. The CA's review is limited to determining if the NLRC acted arbitrarily or capriciously, not to re-examining the merits of the NLRC's judgment. The Court found that the CA did not err in reviewing the NLRC's decision, as the respondents properly availed of the remedy of certiorari. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals committed palpable error, grave abuse of discretion, and arbitrariness when it gave credence to the company-designated physician's assessment over the seafarer's physician: The Court reiterated that the entitlement to disability benefits is governed by the POEA-SEC, the contract, and medical findings. The company-designated physician's assessment is given weight. In this case, Dr. Alegre's February 2, 2012 assessment was an interim diagnosis, not a final one, as Mabalot still required further treatment and consultation. Therefore, it could not be considered a definite assessment within the 120-day period. The failure of the company-designated physician to issue a final assessment within 120 days does not automatically render the disability total and permanent if further medical attention is still required, justifying an extension up to 240 days. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals committed palpable error and grave abuse of discretion when it did not consider that the petitioner is indeed rendered totally unfit for work and unfit for work for more than 240 days: The Court found that Mabalot's complaint was prematurely filed. Dr. Alegre's assessment on February 2, 2012, indicated that Mabalot needed continued physical therapy and consultation with a Rehabilitation Medicine Specialist, justifying an extension of the 120-day period. Mabalot consulted Dr. Jacinto on March 5, 2012, which was 142 days after repatriation and within the 240-day period. Thus, the company-designated doctor still had time to issue a definitive assessment. Mabalot could not rely on Dr. Jacinto's assessment as the company-designated physician had not yet issued a final declaration. The CA correctly reinstated the LA's ruling awarding Grade 11 disability benefits.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer's claim for permanent total disability benefits is governed by the POEA-SEC. The company-designated physician's assessment is crucial, and if it is not a final and definite assessment within the 120-day period (or 240 days with justification), the seafarer's disability is not automatically deemed permanent and total. A premature filing of a complaint before such definitive assessment is made is dismissible.