Bunayog v. Foscon Shipmanagement
MODIFICATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Teodoro B. Bunayog was employed as a chief cook by Foscon Shipmanagement, Inc. for its principal, Green Maritime Co., Ltd. While at sea, he developed symptoms of cough, fever, and difficulty breathing, leading to a diagnosis of left lung pneumonia in Japan and repatriation. Upon return, he was diagnosed by a company-designated physician with pneumonia with recurrent pleural effusion, left s/p thoracentesis, left. After treatment, the company physician declared him fit to work. However, Bunayog consulted his own physician, who declared him unfit for sea duty due to pleural effusion. Bunayog notified the company of this conflicting finding and expressed willingness for further examination, but received no response. He subsequently filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits. 2. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter dismissed Bunayog's complaint, giving more weight to the company-designated physician's assessment of fitness to work. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision, also disregarding the assessment of Bunayog's chosen physician. The Court of Appeals (CA) further affirmed the NLRC's ruling, finding no merit in Bunayog's petition for review. Bunayog then filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Bunayog filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. He argues that the CA gravely erred in not awarding him total and permanent disability benefits, as well as attorney's fees and moral damages. The core of his argument revolves around the conflicting medical assessments and the respondents' failure to respond to his request for a third doctor referral, which he contends should have been taken against them.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not awarding the petitioner total and permanent disability benefits. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not awarding attorney's fees and moral damages.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision dated February 21, 2020, and the Resolution dated September 16, 2020, in CA-G.R. SP No. 154603, in toto. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated February 21, 2020 and the Resolution dated September 16, 2020 in CA-G.R. SP No. 154603, are AFFIRMED in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Total and Permanent Disability Benefits: The Court reiterated that entitlement to disability benefits is governed by law, contract (POEA-SEC), and medical findings. It emphasized the procedure under Section 20(A), paragraph 3 of the 2010 POEA-SEC, which requires referral to a third doctor when the seafarer's physician disagrees with the company-designated physician's assessment. The Court found that the petitioner complied with the procedural requirements by sending a written request to the employer, signifying his willingness to undergo another examination and attaching the medical report of his physician, Dr. Gaurano, who declared him unfit for sea duty. However, the Court found Dr. Gaurano's medical report to be lacking in scientific and medical basis, as it merely defined pleural effusion and its causes without correlating the findings to the petitioner's specific condition or treatment responses. In contrast, the company-designated physician's extensive medical treatment and consistent examinations provided a more credible basis for their assessment. Despite the employer's failure to respond to the petitioner's valid request for a third doctor referral, which ordinarily would be taken against the employer, the Court could not uphold Dr. Gaurano's findings due to their lack of scientific basis. Therefore, the Court reviewed the conflicting findings based on their inherent merits and the totality of evidence, which favored the company-designated physician's assessment. The Court also clarified that while the employer's failure to respond to a valid request for a third doctor referral is a violation of the POEA-SEC, the tribunals and courts are empowered to conduct their own assessment if the seafarer's physician's findings lack scientific basis, as in this case. On the Issue of Attorney's Fees and Moral Damages: The Court found no reason to award attorney's fees and moral damages. The records did not show any bad faith or malicious intent on the part of the respondents that would warrant such awards. The employer's failure to respond to the seafarer's request for a third doctor referral, while a violation of the POEA-SEC, did not automatically translate to entitlement to damages, especially when the seafarer's own medical assessment lacked the required scientific basis. The Court emphasized that while social legislations are liberally construed in favor of laborers, awards must still be anchored on competent evidence and established facts, balancing the rights of both labor and management.
Main Doctrine
The employer's failure to respond to a seafarer's valid written request for a third doctor referral, accompanied by the seafarer's physician's medical report or abstract, constitutes a violation of the POEA-SEC, and the seafarer's physician's findings should be considered binding, unless tainted with bias or lacking scientific basis. In such a scenario, the Court may review the conflicting findings based on the totality of evidence.