Hartman Crew Phils. v. Acabado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Randy V. Acabado (Acabado), hired as Wiper by Hartman Crew Philippines (Hartman) for principal Sea Giant Shipmanagement Ltd. (Sea Giant), sustained knee injuries while working onboard M/T Gaschem Rhone. He reported his condition, underwent medical examinations and therapy, and was eventually recommended for repatriation and surgery due to a "meniscus tear" on his right knee. Upon repatriation, he was referred to Dr. Natalio Alegre II (Dr. Alegre), the company-designated physician, who performed surgery on his right knee. Acabado later sought medical opinions from other physicians who diagnosed him with "medial meniscus tear" on both knees. Petitioners alleged that Dr. Alegre issued progress reports indicating a Grade 10 disability rating and offered disability benefits based on this rating, asserting Acabado failed to comply with the POEA-SEC by not obtaining a third physician's opinion. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) found that respondents failed to properly assess Acabado's disability within the 240-day period, entitling him to total and permanent disability benefits of US$60,000.00 plus attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified this, awarding US$10,075.00 based on the Grade 10 disability assessment of Dr. Alegre. The Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the NLRC ruling, reinstated the LA's decision with modification, awarding US$60,000.00 as permanent total disability benefits and attorney's fees, holding that Acabado is conclusively presumed to be suffering from permanent and total disability due to the company-designated physician's failure to issue a final and definite assessment within the 120 or 240-day period. The Petition: Petitioners seek reversal of the CA decision, arguing that the CA erred in finding Acabado entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, in disregarding the company-designated physician's declaration, and in awarding attorney's fees. They contend that the Grade 10 disability rating is controlling and that Acabado failed to follow the procedure for referral to a third doctor.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held petitioners liable to pay respondent permanent total disability benefits and attorney's fees, considering the company-designated physician's assessment. Whether the company-designated physician's assessment of Grade 10 disability is controlling, and the procedural aspect of referral to a third doctor. Whether Acabado is entitled to permanent total disability benefits despite the absence of a final and definitive assessment within the 120/240-day period, and the justification for the award of attorney's fees.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Decision dated June 21, 2019 and the Resolution dated September 18, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 152789 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to permanent total disability benefits and the controlling nature of the company-designated physician's assessment: The Court reiterated the 120/240-day rule governing a seafarer's entitlement to disability benefits. This rule mandates that the company-designated physician must issue a final and definitive medical assessment within 120 days, extendible to 240 days under justifiable circumstances. The employer bears the burden of proving such justification. Failure to issue a final and definitive assessment within these periods renders the seafarer's disability conclusively presumed to be permanent and total, regardless of any justification. In this case, the company-designated physician's reports dated January 16, 2016, and March 31, 2016, merely advised continued physiotherapy and follow-up appointments, indicating an interim assessment rather than a final and definitive one. The assessment was not definite as to Acabado's capacity to return to work or a categorical final degree of disability. Therefore, the CA correctly ruled that Acabado is entitled to permanent total disability benefits. On the procedural aspect of referral to a third doctor: The Court clarified that the provision on referral to a third doctor under Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC presupposes that the company-designated physician has already issued a valid, final, and definite assessment within the 120-day or 240-day period. Since no such definitive assessment was made by the company-designated physician within the prescribed periods, the seafarer is already conclusively presumed to be suffering from permanent and total disability by operation of law. Consequently, the failure of Acabado to initiate a referral to a third doctor before filing his complaint does not negate his entitlement to benefits. On the award of attorney's fees: The Court affirmed the award of attorney's fees, citing Article 2208 of the Civil Code. This provision allows for attorney's fees when the claimant is compelled to litigate to enforce their claims. Given that Acabado had to pursue legal action to recover his disability benefits, the award of attorney's fees was deemed justified.
Main Doctrine
The failure of the company-designated physician to issue a final and definitive disability assessment within the 120 or 240-day period renders the seafarer's disability conclusively presumed to be permanent and total, entitling the seafarer to the corresponding benefits.