Jakerson G. Gargallo V. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc. G.R. No. 215551, August 17, 2016 Facts

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

JAKERSON G. GARGALLO v. DOHLE SEAFRONT CREWING (MANILA), INC.

G.R. No. 215551, August 17, 2016

FACTS :
The petitioner filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits against respondents
before the National Labor Relations Commission. The complaint stemmed from his claim that: (a) he
accidentally fell on deck while lifting heavy loads of lube oil drum, with his left arm hitting the floor first,
bearing his full body weight; (b)he has remained permanently unfit for further sea service despite major
surgery and further treatment by the company-designated physicians; and (c) his permanent total
unfitness to work was duly certified by his chosen physician whose certification must prevail over the
palpably self-serving and biased assessment of the company-designated physicians.
For their part, respondents countered that the fit-to-work findings of the company-designated
physicians must prevail over that of petitioner's independent doctor, considering that: (a) they were the
ones who continuously treated and monitored petitioner's medical condition; and (b) petitioner failed to
comply with the conflict-resolution procedure under the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). Respondents further averred that the filing
of the disability claim was premature since petitioner was still undergoing medical treatment within the
allowable 240-day period at the time the complaint was filed.
The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC gave more credence to the medical report of petitioner's
independent doctor and, thus, granted petitioner's disability claim. However, the CA disagreed with the
conclusions of the LA and the NLRC, and dismissed petitioner's complaint. It ruled that the claim was
premature because at the time the complaint was filed: (a) petitioner was still under medical treatment
by the company-designated physicians; (b) no medical assessment has yet been issued by the company-
designated physicians as to his fitness or disability since the allowable 240-day treatment period during
which he is considered under temporary total disability has not yet lapsed; and (c) petitioner has not yet
consulted his own doctor, hence, had no sufficient basis to prove his incapacity. The CA likewise gave
more credence to the fit to work assessment of the company-designated physician who treated and
closely monitored petitioner's condition, over the contrary declaration of petitioner's doctor who
attended to him only once, two (2) months after the filing of the complaint.

ISSUE :
Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.

HELD :
NO . The Court upheld the CA's dismissal of petitioner's claim for permanent total disability
benefits. In its decision, the complaint was dismissed on the grounds of: ( a ) premature filing; and ( b )
failure to comply with the mandated conflict-resolution procedure under the POEA-SEC.
It is undisputed that petitioner was repatriated and immediately subjected to medical
treatment. Despite the lapse of the initial 120-day period, such treatment continued due to persistent
pain complained of by petitioner, which was observed until his 180th day of treatment. In this relation,
the CA correctly ruled that the filing of the complaint for permanent total disability benefits was
premature, and should have been dismissed for lack of cause of action. Moreover, petitioner failed to
comply with the prescribed procedure under the afore-quoted Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC
on the joint appointment by the parties of a third doctor, in case the seafarer's personal doctor
disagrees with the company-designated physician's fit-to-work assessment.
The POEA-SEC and the CBA clearly provide that when a seafarer sustains a work-related illness
or injury while on board the vessel, his fitness or unfitness for work shall be determined by the
company-designated physician. If the physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the company-
designated physician's assessment, the opinion of a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the
employer and the seafarer to be the decision final and binding on them. Thus, while petitioner had the
right to seek a second and even a third opinion, the final determination of whose decision must prevail
must be done in accordance with an agreed procedure. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not avail of this
procedure; hence, we have no option but to declare that the company-designated doctor's certification
is the final determination that must prevail.

You might also like