Navarette v. Ventis Maritime Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Allan S. Navarette (petitioner) was employed by Ventis Maritime Corporation (respondent) as a chief cook. Prior to deployment, he disclosed a heart condition and was declared fit for sea duties with instructions to continue medication. During his voyage, he experienced chest pain and was diagnosed with gastritis and acid reflux. He was repatriated and diagnosed by the company-designated physician with ischemic heart disease, hypertension, and acute gastritis. He was later referred to St. Luke's Medical Center, where Dr. Jorge A. Sison evaluated him and declared him fit to work, advising continued medication. Petitioner signed a Certificate of Fitness for Work, releasing respondent of all claims. Despite subsequent medical clearances, respondent did not deploy him. Petitioner consulted Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, a cardiologist, who declared him unfit to resume work as a seaman and concluded his illness was work-related. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a Notice to Arbitrate before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) for disability benefits. The NCMB ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring him totally and permanently disabled and ordering respondent to pay disability benefits and attorney's fees. The NCMB cited provisions of the POEA-SEC regarding cardiovascular diseases and hypertension being work-related and relied on jurisprudence where return to work was conditional on continued medication. Respondent sought reconsideration, which was denied. Respondent then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the NCMB's decision, finding petitioner not totally and permanently disabled. The CA gave credence to the company-designated physician's assessment and found that the 120-day period for assessment was extended to 161 days, which was within the 240-day period, and that petitioner was certified fit to work. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. The issue presented is whether petitioner is totally and permanently disabled.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Allan S. Navarette is entitled to permanent total disability benefits. Whether the medical assessment of the company-designated physician is conclusive and binding, and the effect of the Certificate of Fitness for Work. Whether the failure to refer conflicting medical findings to a third doctor affects the weight of the company-designated physician's assessment.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 14, 2019 and the Resolution dated April 29, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 151846 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether petitioner is entitled to permanent total disability benefits: The Court held that petitioner is not entitled to permanent total disability benefits. The primary consideration in determining entitlement to such benefits is the medical assessment of the company-designated physician. In this case, the company-designated physician issued a medical report on November 20, 2015, finding petitioner fit to resume sea duties. This assessment was issued 161 days after repatriation, which, while exceeding the initial 120-day period, was still within the extended 240-day period allowed under the law and jurisprudence when further medical treatment is required. The assessment was deemed conclusive, complete, and definitive. On the conclusiveness of the company-designated physician's medical assessment and the Certificate of Fitness for Work: The Court reiterated that the company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment within 120 days, extendable to 240 days with justification. If the assessment is issued within these periods and is final and definitive, it generally binds the seafarer. In this case, the assessment was issued within the extended period and was considered definitive, supported by regular consultations and treatment from June 24, 2015, to November 20, 2015. The subsequent PEME and clearances from other specialists further supported the fitness to work. The Court found no merit in petitioner's claim that he was compelled to sign the Certificate of Fitness for Work due to a promise of deployment. This allegation was considered a mere afterthought, lacking sufficient proof to overturn the validity and binding nature of the document he signed. On the failure to refer conflicting medical findings to a third doctor: The Court noted that while petitioner's own physician, Dr. Vicaldo, declared him unfit to work, petitioner did not request a referral to a third doctor to resolve the conflicting findings between the company-designated physician and Dr. Vicaldo. Under Section 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, the third doctor's decision is final and binding. The failure to avail of this mechanism means that the medical opinion of the company-designated physician carries more weight and probative value than that of the seafarer's chosen physician.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the seafarer is not entitled to permanent total disability benefits, emphasizing the conclusiveness of the company-designated physician's medical assessment when issued within the prescribed periods and when there is no referral to a third doctor to resolve conflicting findings.