Paglinawan v. Dohle Philman Agency
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Edgardo M. Paglinawan was employed as an engine and deck fitter by respondents Dohle Philman Agency, Inc. and Dohle-IOM (Limited) on board the vessel MN Tamina. During his employment, he was exposed to dust and chemicals, performed strenuous tasks, and endured long work hours, extreme temperature variations, harsh sea conditions, time zone adjustments, and homesickness. In July 2013, he experienced loose bowel movement and bloody stool, leading to his admission to a hospital in Mexico City. Upon medical repatriation, he was diagnosed with lower gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to ulcerative colitis, iron deficiency anemia, and cholelithiasis, and underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Despite treatment, he maintained he was not restored to his prior health status and sought an opinion from his own physician, who declared him unfit to work as a seafarer. When his claim for permanent total disability benefits was denied, he filed a complaint. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for permanent and total disability benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney's fees against respondents. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering respondents to pay him disability compensation and attorney's fees, finding his illness to be work-aggravated. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA's decision, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit, holding that there was no reasonable connection between the petitioner's work and his illness, and that the LA erred in considering symptoms as illnesses. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC's findings, dismissing the petition for certiorari and holding that the company-designated physician's unequivocal declaration that the illness was not work-related was given more weight, and that the petitioner's claim was premature as he sought a second opinion only after filing the complaint. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the CA's decision, arguing that the presumption of work-relatedness was not sufficiently disputed by respondents, as company-designated physicians may be biased and may not be specialists. He contends that the issue of prematurity was raised for the first time before the CA and thus waived, and that his inability to work for 120 days should be considered permanent disability. He asserts his cause of action arose from the company-designated physician's failure to disclose findings and the lapse of the 120-day period without an assessment, and that the absence of a medical assessment from his own physician does not negate his cause of action. Furthermore, he claims to have presented substantial evidence that his working conditions aggravated his illness. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner is entitled to permanent total disability benefits. Whether petitioner's illness, ulcerative colitis, is work-related or work-aggravated. Whether petitioner's claim for disability benefits was premature.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court affirms the ruling of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner is not entitled to permanent total disability benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to permanent total disability benefits: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that petitioner is not entitled to permanent total disability benefits. The governing contract is the 2010 POEA-SEC, which requires an illness to be work-related and to have existed during the employment term for compensation. Ulcerative colitis is not listed as an occupational disease, thus it is disputably presumed work-related. However, petitioner bears the burden of proving by substantial evidence a reasonable causal connection between his illness and his work. The records do not show how his work caused the illness, relying only on bare allegations and speculations. The same applies to the claim of work-aggravation; petitioner failed to present substantial evidence linking his illness to his work. On the work-relatedness and work-aggravation of the illness: The Court agreed with the CA that petitioner failed to prove the work-relatedness of his illness by substantial evidence. The records lacked evidence of a link between his work as an engine and deck fitter and the development of ulcerative colitis. His claims were based on general averments and speculations, which are insufficient for disability compensation awards. Similarly, the allegation that his illness was work-aggravated was not substantiated by substantial evidence. The company-designated physician's report dated September 27, 2013, unequivocally stated that the illness was not work-related. This report is binding when not refuted by the seafarer's physician of choice and a third doctor. Petitioner failed to present a contrary medical opinion, and his consultation with a second physician was belated, occurring after he filed his complaint. The CA found that his appointed physician did not personally examine him, rendering the certification unreliable. On the prematurity of the claim: The Court found petitioner's claim to be premature. For a seafarer to have a basis for claiming total and permanent disability benefits, specific instances must be present, such as the company-designated physician failing to issue a declaration within 120 days, or a contrary opinion from the seafarer's physician of choice and a third doctor when the company-designated physician declares the illness not work-related. In this case, the company-designated physician issued a medical report within 120 days stating the illness was not work-related. Petitioner filed his complaint before seeking a second opinion from his physician of choice, Dr. Galvez, whose medical certificate was issued on February 19, 2014, after the complaint was filed on January 7, 2014. Therefore, at the time of filing, he was not armed with the required contrary opinion to refute the company-designated physician's findings. The Court also noted that respondents adequately raised the issue of prematurity in their position paper before the LA, refuting petitioner's claim that it was raised for the first time on appeal. The 120-day rule was also deemed immaterial as the company-designated physician rendered a final assessment within the period.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer's claim for permanent total disability benefits is premature if filed without a contrary medical opinion from a physician of choice, refuting the company-designated physician's assessment, and if the company-designated physician has issued a timely assessment within the 120-day period.