Hisanza v. Bright Maritime Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Adan De Guzman Hisanza (Hisanza), a seafarer, was recruited by respondent Bright Maritime Corporation (Bright) to work on vessels of its principal, Navios Shipmanagement Inc. (Navios). On December 7, 2015, Hisanza sustained a slipped intervertebral disc injury while working, leading to repatriation and treatment. He was certified fit for seafaring duty on September 14, 2016, and re-hired by Bright on November 10, 2016, as an able-bodied seaman (ABS) under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). On May 24, 2017, Hisanza experienced severe back pain again while on board, necessitating repatriation on May 29, 2017. He underwent treatment and physical therapy until December 2017. On December 5, 2017, Bright's company clinic issued an 'interim assessment' of disability grade 11, and Bright subsequently informed Hisanza it would no longer shoulder further treatments. Dissatisfied, Hisanza sought a second opinion from Dr. Venancio Garduce, an orthopedic specialist, who certified him with a disability rating of three and unfit for seafaring work. Procedural History: On July 19, 2018, Hisanza filed a complaint before the Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, and damages. Respondents argued that Hisanza failed to properly dispute the company physician's assessment and lacked a third-doctor referral, and that his injury was not proven work-related. The RAB awarded Hisanza disability benefits corresponding to Grade 11 (USD 7,465.00) and sickness allowance, giving more weight to the company physician's assessment. Hisanza appealed to the NLRC, arguing against the company physician's assessment and for a liberal interpretation of the POEA-SEC to grant him total and permanent disability benefits. The NLRC denied Hisanza's appeal, affirming the RAB's ruling, holding that Hisanza's failure to refer the dispute to a third doctor gave the company physician's assessment finality. Hisanza's motion for reconsideration, raising for the first time the interim nature of the December 2017 assessment, was denied by the NLRC as a mere rehash. Hisanza then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) on certiorari. The CA dismissed Hisanza's petition, sustaining the labor tribunals' findings, ruling that a third-doctor referral is mandatory, and that mere lapse of the 120-day period does not automatically entitle a seafarer to total and permanent disability benefits. The Petition: Hisanza sought recourse before the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that: 1) the December 2017 assessment was invalid as it was neither definitive nor properly communicated to him; 2) a third-doctor referral is not mandatory under the POEA-SEC; 3) he is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits despite the disability ratings he received, as his condition rendered him unfit for seafaring work; and 4) he is entitled to moral and exemplary damages. Respondents repleaded their arguments from the labor tribunals, urging the Court to affirm the CA's ruling.
Issue(s)
Whether the December 2017 assessment by the company-designated physician is valid and definitive. Whether a third-doctor referral is mandatory under the POEA-SEC. Whether Hisanza is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. Whether Hisanza is entitled to moral and exemplary damages.
Ruling
The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The December 14, 2021 Decision and the January 4, 2023 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 168160 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as it awarded USD 7,465.00 in disability benefits and PHP 98,559.00 in sickness allowance to petitioner Adan De Guzman Hisanza. Judgment is hereby rendered ORDERING respondents Bright Maritime Corporation and Navios Shipmanagement, Inc. to solidarily PAY Adan De Guzman Hisanza a disability benefit of USD 60,000.00 or its Philippine peso equivalent, and 10% of said amount as attorney's fees. The monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until full payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found that the December 5, 2017 assessment by the company-designated physician was neither final nor definitive. The assessment itself was labeled as a "10th Progress Report" and explicitly stated that the disability grade of 11 was an "interim disability grade." It also recommended continued medication and physical therapy, indicating that further action was still required. As reiterated in Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Mirasol, a final assessment must clearly state fitness to work or the exact disability rating without any further condition or treatment, and must be issued after exhausting all possible treatment options. Bright's unilateral declaration of this interim assessment as final and its premature stoppage of Hisanza's treatment constituted a breach of its obligations under the POEA-SEC, rendering the assessment invalid. On Issue 2: The Court held that the issue regarding the lack of a third-doctor referral has been rendered moot. This is because the employer failed to issue a valid final and definitive assessment of Hisanza's condition and seafaring fitness upon the lapse of the 240-day extended treatment period. When there is no valid final assessment from the company-designated physician, the seafarer is deemed totally and permanently disabled by operation of law, as established in cases like Kestrel Shipping Co, Inc., et al. v. Munar. Consequently, there is no conflicting assessment to refer to a third doctor, making the referral mechanism inapplicable. On Issue 3: Hisanza is deemed totally and permanently disabled by operation of law (ipso jure). This arises from the employers' failure to issue a valid final and definitive assessment of his condition and seafaring fitness upon the lapse of the 240-day extended treatment period, and their reliance on an interim assessment to justify the premature cessation of the required treatment under the POEA-SEC. The Court emphasized that failure to make a definitive assessment within the reglementary treatment period gives rise to a conclusive presumption that the seafarer is totally and permanently disabled, as consistently held in jurisprudence such as Salas v. Transmed Manila Corp. and Kestrel Shipping Co, Inc., et al. v. Munar. Therefore, Hisanza is entitled to the disability benefit for total and permanent disability, which is USD 60,000.00 under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC. On Issue 4: The Court found no cogent reason to reverse the common rulings of the RAB, the NLRC, and the CA on moral and exemplary damages. There was no recorded indication of any bad faith or malicious conduct on the part of respondents that would entitle Hisanza to such damages. However, the Court affirmed the award of attorney's fees. As held in Atienza v. TKC Heavy Industries Corp., in labor proceedings, the withholding of wages or benefits need not be attended by malice or bad faith to merit an award of attorney's fees; it is sufficient that lawful wages or benefits are unjustifiably withheld, thereby compelling the employee to litigate.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that a company-designated physician's medical assessment for a seafarer's disability must be final, conclusive, and definitive, clearly stating whether the seafarer is fit to work or the exact disability rating, without any further condition or treatment. This assessment must be issued after exhausting all possible treatment options within the reglementary 120-day or extended 240-day period. An 'interim' assessment is not considered final and cannot be used to justify the premature cessation of treatment. Failure to issue such a definitive assessment within the prescribed period gives rise to a conclusive presumption that the seafarer is totally and permanently disabled by operation of law, rendering the issue of a third-doctor referral moot.