Photo from Pexels | Nikita Igonkin
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
In the case of Teodoro B. Bunayog vs. Foscon Shipmanagement Inc.,/ Green Maritime Co., Ltd.,/ Evelyn M. Defensor, G.R. No. 253480, April 25, 2023, consistent with the Court’s constitutional mandate to afford full protection to labor, the Court laid down guidelines to govern the disability benefits claims where the seafarer requests for a third doctor referral.
FACTS:
Petitioner was engaged by Foscon Shipmanagement, Inc., (Foscon) on behalf of its foreign principal, Green Maritime Co., Ltd. (Green), (collectively, respondents) as a chief cook onboard the vessel MIT Morning Breeze for a period of nine months. On July 31, 2016, while on board the vessel, petitioner experienced cough, fever and difficulty in breathing. On August 2, 2016, petitioner was brought to a clinic in Japan where he was diagnosed with left lung pneumonia. He was declared by the doctor to be unfit for sea duty. Thus, he was repatriated to the Philippines on August 4, 2016 and referred immediately to a company-designated physician. After evaluation, petitioner was diagnosed to be suffering from pneumonia with recurrent pleural effusion, left s/p thoracentesis, left. Petitioner’s treatment lasted until September 28, 2016. On such date, one of the company-designated physicians, Dr.Pangilinan, declared petitioner fit to work.
Petitioner, thereafter, consulted a physician of his choice, Dr. Gaurano, who declared him unfit for sea duty due to his pleural effusion. On November 10, 2016, petitioner sent a letter to respondent Evelyn M. Defensor (Evelyn), president of Foscon, informing her of the findings of his doctor and of his willingness to undergo another medical examination to confirm his permanent disability. No response, however, was made on the part of respondents.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits, among others. Petitioner averred that he is entitled to a total and permanent disability benefit in the amount of US$60,000.00, since he can no longer perform his tasks as a chief cook.
Respondents averred that petitioner is not entitled to any disability compensation considering that the company-designated physician had already declared him fit to work; and that as between the findings of the company-designated physician and the petitioner’s physician of choice, the former’s findings should prevail since petitioner’s doctor examined him only once.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The LA gave credence to the findings of the company-designated physician over that of petitioner’s physician of choice. The LA ratiocinated that petitioner’s doctor based his conclusion that petitioner was no longer fit to work based on popular observation and findings of patient’s responses to treatment, not on a specific study of petitioner’s condition and responses to medical treatment. Meanwhile, the company-designated physician’s declaration of petitioner’s fitness to work was founded on petitioner’s specific responses to the step-by-step medical interventions administered on his condition.
The NLRC affirmed the findings of the LA. Similar to the conclusion of the LA, the NLRC gave no probative value to the assessment made by petitioner’s physician of choice. The NLRC likewise ruled that despite respondents’ failure to seek a third doctor after petitioner signified its intent to undergo another examination to confirm his condition, it does not necessarily redound to the benefit of petitioner, that is, his physician’s assessment should be binding. The NLRC ratiocinated that “the appointment of a third doctor requires mutual agreement of the employer and the seafarer, and in case the parties failed to agree on a third doctor, the seafarer can initiate a complaint before the [LA] or NLRC, and the case will be resolved based on its merit.”
The CA affirmed the findings of the LA and the NLRC. The CA disregarded the assessment made by petitioner’s physician considering that the physician did not require petitioner to undergo medical tests; nor was the assessment based on petitioner’s response after a specific treatment was administered to him.
Issue
Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not awarding the petitioner total and permanent disability benefits
Ruling
No. The Court affirmed the CA’s decision in toto.
The Supreme Court En Banc laid down the guidelines to govern disability benefit claims where, following conflicting findings from the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s physician of choice, the seafarer subsequently requests for a referral to a third doctor.
To complete the discussion, here are the rules once the seafarer has instituted the complaint against his or her employer:
- Upon the filing of the complaint and during the mandatory conference, the Labor Arbiter (LA) shall give the parties a period of 15 days to secure the services of a third doctor and an additional period of 30 days for the third doctor to submit his/her reassessment.
- If the services of a third doctor were not secured on account of the employer’s refusal to give heed to the LA’s request or due to the failure of the parties to mutually agree as to the third doctor, the labor tribunals should make conclusive between the parties the findings of the seafarer’s physician of choice, unless the same is clearly biased, i.e., lacking in scientific basis or unsupported by the medical records of the seafarer. In such a case, the inherent merits of the respective medical findings and the totality of evidence shall be considered by the labor tribunals or courts.
- If, however, the failure to refer the seafarer’s condition to a third doctor after directive from the LA was due to the fault of the seafarer, then the labor tribunals and the courts should make conclusive between the parties the findings of the company-designated physician, except when the company-designated physician’s medical conclusion is found to have been issued with a clear bias in favor of the employer, i.e., lacking in scientific basis, or unsupported by the medical records of the seafarer, as held in Dionio v. Trans-Global Maritime Agency. Inc. When such exception applies, the inherent merits of the respective medical findings shall be considered by the tribunals or court.
If, despite the employer’s failure to respond to the seafarer’s valid request for a third doctor, the parties, during mandatory conference, were able to secure the services of a third doctor, and the latter was able to make a reassessment on the seafarer’s condition, the third doctor’s findings should be final and binding between the parties. In such a case, the employer’s refusal to respond to the seafarer’s valid request for a third doctor referral should be considered immaterial.
In Mr. Bunayog’s case, while he was able to comply with the aforementioned guidelines and that his employer refused to act on his request for a third referral, the Court held that the exception shall apply since the medical report issued by Mr. Bunayog’s physician was without any scientific and medical basis. While the doctor’s medical certificate enumerated the tests which Mr. Bunayog underwent, the results of such tests were not discussed nor correlated to the finding of unfitness to work as a seafarer.
The report from the company-designated physician, on the other hand, was deemed more credible by the Court since it sufficiently demonstrated the extensive medical treatment that enabled the doctor to make a final diagnosis of Mr. Bunayog’s health condition.
Lastly, the Court emphasized that while labor rules must be applied fairly, reasonably, and liberally in favor of the seafarers, they cannot be taken to sanction award of disability benefits anchored on insubstantial evidence.
Source:
Teodoro B. Bunayog vs. Foscon Shipmanagement, Inc., et. al.
G.R. No. 253480 | April 25, 2023
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.