CASE 2016-0062: EDUARDO C. SILAGAN V. SOUTHFIELD AGENCIES, INC., VICTORIANO A. BASCO and/o HYUNDAI MERCHANT MARITIME, CO., LTD.,* (G.R. 202808 , 14 SEPTEMBER 2016, PEREZ, J)
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
This is not the first time that the Court upheld the findings of the company designated physician who has an unfettered opportunity to track the physical condition of the seaman in prolonged period of time versus the medical report of the seafarer’s personal doctor who only examined him once and who based his assessment solely on the medical records adduced by his patient. Thus in Formerly INC Shipmanagement, Incorporated v. Rosales, 33 we ruled:
“Even granting that the complaint should be given due course, we hold that the company-designated physician’s assessment should prevail over that of the private physician. The company-designated physician had thoroughly examined and treated Rosales from the time of his repatriation until his disability grading was issued, which was from February 20, 2006 until October 10, 2006. In contrast, the private physician only attended to Rosales once, on November 9, 2006. This is not the first time that this Court met this situation. Under these circumstances, the assessment of the company-designated physician is more credible for having been arrived at after months of medical attendance and d~agnosis, compared with the assessment of a private physician done in one day on the basis of an examination or existing medical records.” (Emphasis omitted)
Second, petitioner failed to comply with the procedure laid down under Section 20 (B) (3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC with regard to the joint appointment by the parties of a third doctor whose decision shall be final and binding on them in case the seafarer’s personal doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician’s fit-to-work assessment. This referral to a third doctor has been held by this Court to be a mandatory procedure as a consequence of the provision that it is the company-designated doctor whose assessment should prevail. 34 In other words, the company can insist on its disability rating even against the contrary opinion by another doctor, unless the seafarer expresses his disagreement by asking for a referral to a third doctor who shall make his or her determination and whose decision is final and binding on the parties.
We are thus compelled to dismiss the present complaint, as we had similarly done in Philippine Hammonia, to impress upon the public the significance of a binding obligation. This pronouncement shall not only speed up the processing of mantlme disability claims and decongest court dockets; more importantly, our ruling would restore faith and confidence in obligations that have voluntarily been entered upon. As an institution tasked to uphold and respect the law, it is our primary duty to ensure faithful compliance with the law whether the dispute affects strictly private interests or one imbued with public interest. We shall not hesitate to dismiss a petition wrongfully filed, or to hold any persons liable for its malicious initiation. “36 (Citation omitted)
In fine, given that petitioner’s permanent disability was not established through substantial evidence for the reasons above-stated, the Court of Appeals did not err iJ.?. reversing the NLRC ruling for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion. Verily, while the Court adheres to the principle of liberality in favor of the seafarer in construing the POEASEC, when the evideJ;ice presented negates compensability, the claim for disability benefits must necessarily fail,37 as in this case.
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 