REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 04 August 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 204102 (Samuel M. Alberca v. Transocean
Shipmanagement (Phils.), Inc., John T. Essberger B. V., and/or Mr. Carlos
S. Salinas). - Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari dated
December 17, 2012 filed by petitioner Samuel M. Alberca (Alberca) praying
for the reversal of the Decision 1 dated June 28, 2012 and the Resolution2
dated October 22, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in the case entitled,
"Transocean Shipmanagement (Phils.), Inc., John T. Essberger B. V, and/or
Mr. Carlos S. Salinas vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Samuel
M Alberca," docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 123285.

The Factual Antecedents

Alberca was employed by the respondents Transocean

Shipmanagement (Phils.), Inc., John T. Essberger B.V., and/or Mr. Carlos S.
Salinas (respondents) as a pumpman on board the vessel MIT Bastian Broere
under a Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA)-approved
employment contract, which commenced on October 21, 2009. 3

On January 9, 2010, while working on deck, Alberca's left hand was

caught between the roller and the rope, injuring his second, third and fourth
fingers on his left hand. First aid measures were rendered by the other crew
members. Thereafter, Alberca was brought to a doctor in the Netherlands,
where he was diagnosed with "crush injury, digit II, III, and IV and minimal
avulsion fracture distale phalange, left hand. " 4

On January 12, 2010, Alberca was medically repatriated, and was

immediately referred to the company-designated physician at the
Metropolitan Medical Center. He was diagnosed to have crush injury of the
left hand with burst laceration of the third and fourth fingers, and hematoma

Rollo, pp. 225-238; penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican with Associate Justices Jane
Aurora C. Lantion and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. concurring.
Id. at 240-24 1.
ld.atl0-11.
Id. at 99.

(14S)URES - more -
 Resolution 2 G.R. No. 204102

of the index finger. He immediately underwent surgical operations, and was

given medications for his condition. 5

For over five months, Alberca underwent several sessions of physical

therapy and other treatments under the care and supervision of the company-
designated physician. On April 2 7, 2010, the company-designated physician
found that there was improving sensation and strength of the index, middle,
and ring fingers on Alberca's left hand, but Alberca was advised to continue
with his therapy and home exercise. Thereafter, on May 22, 2010, the
company-designated physician issued a medical report where it was found
that there was improved sensation on the left second finger with flexion
contracture of the distal interphalangeal joint, left third finger. Likewise, the
company-designated physician found that Alberca's grip strength remains to
be good, but the company-designated physician advised Alberca to continue
physical therapy and to come back for re-evaluation on June 11, 2010.
However, despite due notice, Alberca failed to show up for his re-
evaluation. 6

Unsatisfied with the treatments rendered by the company-designated

physician, and unknown to the respondents, Alberca sought the medical
opinion of Dr. Manuel Fidel M. Magtira (Dr. Magtira) on May 29, 2010.7
Based on the medical report8 dated May 29, 2010, Dr. Magtira found that
Alberca was suffering from a 20.15% of Grade 10 Disability - loss of
grasping power for large objects between the fingers and palm of one hand.
Further, Dr. Magtira noted that since Alberca is a left-handed person, the
injury to his dominant hand is a burden, and as such, Alberca was declared
permanently unfit for further sea duties. 9

On June 17, 2010, and after Alberca failed to show up for re-
evaluation, the company-designated physician issued a medical report which
stated that: "The specialist opines that patient is for possible fitness to work
°
on June 11, 2010. However, patient failed to report as instructed." 1 Finally,
on July 29 2010 or 168 days from Alberca's repatriation, the company-
designated physician issued his final and definitive assessment, which found
that Alberca was suffering from a 20% of Grade 12 Disability due to the
loss of function of petitioner Alberca's third finger. 11

Id.
6
Id. at 99-101.
Id. at 13, 100.
Id. at 95-96.
9
Id. at 96.
10
Id. at IO I.
II Id.

(145)URES - more -
/dtf
 Resolution 3 G.R. No. 204102

Proceedings before the Labor Tribunals

Alberca filed a Complaint against the respondents before the Labor

Arbiter claiming full disability benefits. In the Complaint, which was
principally grounded on the medical assessment of Dr. Magtira, Alberca
argued that: (1) the medical assessment of the company-designated
physician is not final and conclusive; and (2) he is entitled to permanent and
total disability benefits pursuant to Pe1manent Medical Unfitness provisions
in their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) since Dr. Magtira declared
him to be permanently unfit for sea duties. 12 Pertinently, the Permanent
Medical Unfitness provisions of the CBA provide:

20.1.3.1
A seafarer who suffers disabling permanent disability as a result of
a work related illness or from an injury as a result of an accident
regardless of fault but excluding injuries caused by a seafarer's willful act,
whilst traveling to or from the ship, and whose ability to work is reduced
as a result thereof, shall in addition to sick pay, be entitled to
compensation according to the provisions of this Agreement. In
determining work related illness, reference shall be made to the Philippine
Employees Compensation Law and/or Social Security Law. 13

20.1.4. Permanent Medical Unfitness

A seafarer whose disability is assessed at 50% or more under the
POEA Employment Contract shall, for the purpose of this paragraph be
regarded as permanently unfit for further sea service in any capacity and
entitled to 100% compensation, i.e. US$148,500.00 for senior officers,
US$118,800.00 for junior officers and US$89,100.00 for ratings
(effective January 1, 2008). Furthermore, any seafarer assessed at less
than 50% disability under the contract but certified as permanently
unfit for further sea service in any capacity by the Company doctor,
shall also be entitled to 100% compensation . 14 (Emphasis supplied)

In response, the respondents argued that Alberca is guilty of medical

abandonment, and his refusal to continue his treatment prevented
improvement of his physical condition. Moreover, the respondents argued
that the findings of the company-designated physician must be upheld. 15

On April 28, 2011, the Labor Arbiter rendered its Decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Samuel's claim for payment

of full disability benefits is dismissed for lack of merit. Respondents are
hereby ordered to pay Samuel disability benefits equivalent to 20% of
Grade 12 pursuant to the POEA Standard Employment Contract.

11
Id. at 14, 100-102.
13
Id. at 29.
14
Id. at 57.
15
Id. at 102-103.

(145)URES - more - •
 Resolution 4 G.R. No. 204102

All other claims are dismissed for lack of basis.

SO ORDERED. 16

In denying Alberca's claim for full disability benefits, the Labor

Arbiter highlighted that Alberca failed to continue his treatments, and thus,
Alberca himself prevented his injury from being cured. Moreover, the Labor
Arbiter noted that Alberca's claim for full disability benefits has no basis
considering that his own doctor of choice, Dr. Magtira, made an assessment
that he was merely suffering from a Grade 10 Disability. Finally, the Labor
Arbiter ruled that the medical findings of the company-designated physician,
though not automatically binding, must be given more probative weight in
this case, considering the extensive medical evaluation conducted by the
company-designated physician over the course of several months. 17

Aggrieved, Alberca appealed to the National Labor Relations

Commission (NLRC). 18 Notably, the NLRC gave credence to the findings of
Dr. Magtira that since Alberca is a left-handed person, the injury to his
dominant hand made him unfit for further sea duties. Moreover, the NLRC
explained that permanent disability is the inability to perform work for more
than 120 days, and since Alberca has not been able to work for more than
120 days since he was medically repatriated on January 12, 2010, then there
is no doubt that he is suffering from permanent and total disability. 19 Thus,
the NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter's Decision, and ordered the
respondents to pay Alberca full disability benefits:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Labor

Arbiter dated April 28, 2011 is hereby MODIFIED by ordering the
Respondents to pay disability benefits to the Complainant in the amount of
US$89, 100.00 pursuant to the AMOS UP CBA.

The rest of the Decision is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 20

The respondents moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied
in the NLRC's Resolution21 dated December 2, 2011.

Petition before the CA

Because of the adverse rulings of the NLRC, the respondents elevated

the case before the CA via Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court.
16
Id. at I 06.
17
Id. at I 04-106.
18
Id. at 107- 12 1.
19
Id. at 129-131.
m Id. at 132- 133 .
21
Id. at 134-1 35.

(145)URES - more -
 Resolution 5 G.R. No. 204102

In their Petition for Certiorari, the respondents alleged that the NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and excess of
jurisdiction when it awarded Alberca pennanent and total disability benefits
in the amount ofUS$89,100.00 considering that:

First, both the company-designated physician and

petitioner Alberca's doctor of choice assessed Alberca to be
suffering only from Grade 12 Disability and Grade 10
Disability, respectively. 22

Second, the POEA Standard Employment Contract

specifically provides that it is the company-designated
physician who should assess the seafarer's ·degree of
disability. 23

Third, while a seafarer may ask for the medical opinion

of another doctor, such opinion does not automatically set aside
the medical findings of the company-designated physician. 24

Fourth, the medical findings of Dr. Magtira deserve scant

consideration since he only examined Alberca once, and he did
not conduct any extensive medical examinations nor tests upon
Alberca. On the other hand, the medical assessment of the
company-designated physician was based on extensive medical
examinations over the course of several months. 25

Fifth, the NLRC's reliance on the presumption that a

seafarer is suffering from permanent and total disability after
the lapse of 120 days is misplaced since such rule has already
been modified and extended to a maximum of 240 days. In the
present case, the company-designated physician issued his
medical assessment within 198 days from repatriation, clearly
within the 240-day period. In any case, it must be emphasized
that the POEA Standard Employment Contract actually
measures disability benefits in terms of grading and not merely
by the number of days. 26

On June 28, 2012, the CA rendered its Decision, the dispositive

portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is

hereby rendered by us GRANTING the instant petition. The Decision

22 Id. at 150.
23
Id. at 15 1.
24
Id . at 161.
25
Id. at 165-166.
26
Id. at 180-1 8 1.

(145)URES - more -
Jr/~
 Resolution 6 G.R. No. 204102

rendered by the Sixth (6111 ) Division of the National Labor Relations

Commission (NLRC) dated September 30, 2011 in NLRC LAC No. OFW
(M)-07-000607-11 and the subsequent Resolution dated December 2,
2011 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision rendered by
Labor Arbiter Eduardo DJ. Carpio dated April 28, 2011 in NLRC NCR
Case No. (M) NCR-06-08617-10 is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED. 27

In reversing the Resolution of the NLRC, the CA ruled that under the
POEA Standard Employment Contract, the company-designated physician is
the one tasked to assess a seafarer's disability. Thus, the findings of the
company-designated physician must be upheld, especially because
company-designated physicians extend extensive medical attention and
acquire familiarity and detailed knowledge of the patient's medical
condition.28

The CA likewise stated that it cannot give credence to the medical

findings of Alberca's doctor of choice, Dr. Magtira, considering that Dr.
Magtira's assessment that Alberca is unfit for sea duties was made only after
he had seen Alberca once.29 All told, the CA found no reasonable basis to
grant full disability benefits in favor of Alberca.30

The Instant Petition

. In view of the CA's reversal of the NLRC Decision, Alberca came

before this Court by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, 31 where Alberca raised the following issues:

I. THE [CA] COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR OF

LAW AND VIOLATION OF SECTION 20(B) OF THE
POEA STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT IN
HOLDING THAT IT IS THE COMPANY-
DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN'S FINDINGS WHICH
SHOULD FORM THE BASIS OF ANY DISABILITY
CLAIM OF THE SEAFARER.

II. THE [CA] COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR WHEN

IT FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO APPLY THE
CORRECT LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE ON
DISABILITY BENEFITS. 32

27
Id. at 237.
28
Id. at 233-235.
29
Id. at 233.
30
Id.at237.
31
Id. at 8.
n Id. at 16-17.

(145)URES - more -
 Resolution 7 G.R. No. 204102

Thus, in the instant petition, Alberca principally argued the following:

First, citing several case law, Alberca contended that the

medical findings of the company-designated physician are not
conclusive upon the seafarer and the courts since the seafarer
may seek the opinion of his or her doctor of choice.33

Second, Alberca argued that the company-designated

physician is only given a period of 120 days to declare a
seafarer fit to work or assess the degree of the seafarer' s
disability. 34 However, in this case, Alberca was subjected to
treatments for more than five months without any such
declaration of fitness or unfitness for work from the company-
designated physician. 35 Thus, such failure of the company-
designated physician to declare Alberca' s fitness to work within
the 120-day period entitles him to permanent and total disability
benefits. 36

Third, Alberca alleged that the CA gravely erred when it

failed to apply the Permanent Medical Unfitness provisions of
the CBA. Accordingly, Alberca argued that under the
Permanent Medical Unfitness provisions of the CBA, he is
entitled to permanent and total disability benefits since Dr.
Magtira already declared him to be permanently unfit for
further sea duties. 37

On May 9, 2013, respondents filed their Comment/Opposition (To

Petitioner's Petition for Review),38 where the respondents averred that the
CA correctly ruled that Alberca is not entitled to full disability
compensation.

In their Comment/Opposition, the respondents emphasized that

Alberca's claim for full disability benefits has no factual and legal basis
because neither the company-designated physician nor Alberca' s doctor of
choice made an assessment that Alberca is suffering from a permanent and
total disability. 39

The respondents likewise argued that mere inability to work for a

period of 120 days does not entitle a seafarer to permanent disability benefits
since under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, disability benefits

33
Id. at 17-23.
34
Id. at 20
35 Id. at 21.
36
Id. at 24-28.
37
Id. at 29-30.
38
Id. at 248-281.
39
Id. at 249.

(145)URES - more -
 Resolution 8 G.R. No. 204102

are measured not through the number of days, but by the disability gradings
assessed by the company-designated physician. In any case, the respondents
stressed that the presumption of permanent disability after the lapse of 120
days has already been modified. Citing several jurisprudence, the
respondents stated that a seafarer's disability only becomes permanent when
the company-designated physician, within the period of 240 days, declares it
to be so, or when after the lapse of such period, fails to make such
declaration. Thus, since the company-designated physician was able to make
a medical assessment within the 240-day period, Alberca is not entitled to
full disability benefits.40

Finally, the respondents alleged that Dr. Magtira's declaration that

Alberca is unfit for further sea duties cannot be used as a basis for his
entitlement to full disability benefits under the CBA, since Dr. Magtira is not
an independent doctor contemplated under the POEA Standard Employment
Contract. Under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, if the seafarer's
doctor of choice disagrees with the assessment made by the company-
designated physician, a third doctor may be jointly appointed by the
employer and the seafarer. However, in this case, Dr. Magtira was chosen by
Alberca alone, and thus, cannot be considered as the independent doctor
contemplated under the POEA Standard Employment Contract. 4 1

On October 7, 2013, Alberca filed his Reply where he reiterated that

he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.42

Our Ruling

Upon review of the submissions filed before this Court, it appears that
the main issue to be resolved is whether Alberca is entitled to the full
compensation for permanent and total disability.

As a general rule, only questions of law raised via a petition for

review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are reviewable by
this Court. 43 However, such rule may be relaxed when, as in the present
case, the findings of the CA differ with that of the NLRC.44 However, while
there are no procedural obstacles for this Court to conduct this review, We
still find that the instant Petition is devoid of merit.

In Disability Compensation, The Company-

Designated Physician Is Tasked To Assess
The Seafarer's Disability.

40
Id. at 267-274.
41
Id. at 274.
42
Id. at 283 .
13
· Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Silvestre, 823 Phil. 44, 56 (2018).
44
Aldaba v. Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc., 8 11 Phil. 486, 495 (2017).

(145)URES - more -
 Resolution 9 G.R. No. 204102

As correctly stated by the CA, under the POEA Standard Employment

Contract, the person tasked to determine whether the seafarer is suffering
from any disability or is fit to work is the company-designated physician. 45
Such rule has likewise been consistently upheld in a long line of cases.

In Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. Velasquez, 46 this Court categorically

ruled that the disability of a seafarer can only be assessed by a company-
designated physician:

These provisions clearly illustrate that respondent's disability can

only be assessed by the company-designated physician. If the company-
designated physician declares him fit to work, then the seaman is bound
by such declaration.

Further, it should be noted that the claim for sickness and

permanent disability benefits arose from the stipulations in the standard
format contract of employment pursuant to a circular of the POEA. Such
circular was intended for all pai1ies involved in the employment of
Filipino seamen on board any ocean-going vessel. The POEA Contract, of
which the parties are both signatories, is the law between them and as
such, its provisions bind both of them. Thus, the parties are both bound
by the provisions of the POEA Contract which declares that the
degree of disability or fitness to work of a seafarer should be assessed
by the company-designated physician.47 (Emphasis supplied; citation
omitted)

Further, in Ison v. Crewserve, Inc., 48 this Court again ruled that the
company-designated physician is the one tasked to determine a seafarer's
degree of disability:

[l]t is explicit and clear that for purposes of detennining the

seafarer's degree of disability, it is the company-designated physician
who must proclaim that he sustained a permanent disability, whether
total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of his
employment. This was the ruling in Panganiban v. Tara Trading
Shipmanagement, Inc., where it was held that there being no ambiguity in
the wordings of the Standard Employment Contract that the only
qualification prescribed for the physician entrusted with the task of
assessing the disability is that he be "company-designated," the literal
meaning of the same shall thus control. 49 (Emphasis supplied; citation
omitted)

With the foregoing, it is evident that the task of determining a

seafarer's disability principally falls upon the company-designated
physician. Nevertheless, We confirm Alberca's understanding that the
assessment made by the company-designated physician is not automatically
-l5
Rollo, p. 234.
46
591 Phil. 839 (2008).
47
Id. at 849.
48
685 Phil. 704(2012).
49
Id. at 715.

(145)URES - more -
/r~
 Resolution 10 G.R. No. 204102

binding nor conclusive, considering that the POEA Standard Employment

Contract recognizes a seafarer's prerogative to consult with his or her doctor
50
of choice. In fact, in Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency, Jnc., 51 We
clarified that the assessment made by the company-designated physician is
not automatically final or binding, since a seafarer may consult with a doctor
of his or her choice:

Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements that it is the

company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing
the seaman's disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or
illness, during the term of the latter's employment. It is his findings and
evaluations which should form the basis of the seafarer's disability claim.
His assessment, however, is not automatically final, binding or
conclusive on the claimant, the labor tribunal or the courts, as its
inherent merits would still have to be weighed and duly considered.
The seafarer may dispute such assessment by seasonably exercising
his prerogative to seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of his
choice. x x x 52 (Emphasis supplied; citation omitted)

Such ruling has been reiterated by this Court in Seacrest Maritime

Management, Inc. v. Roderos, 53 where it was held:

It is settled jurisprudence that it is the company-designated

physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman' s
disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the
term of the latter' s employment. While this is so, the same finding is not
automatically final, binding or conclusive.

In fact, should the seafarer disagree with the assessment by the

company designated physician, the former may dispute the assessment
by seasonably exercising his/her prerogative to seek a second opinion
and consult a doctor of his/her choice. In case of disagreement between
the findings of the company-designated physician and the seafarer's
doctor of choice, the employer and the seafarer may agree jointly to refer
the latter to a third doctor whose decision shall be final and binding on
them. 54 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)

In other words, and as succinctly stated by this Court in Tulabing v.

MST Marine Services (Phils.), Jnc., 55 "[t]he only instance when the
assessment of the company-designated physician may be challenged is when
the seafarer likewise consulted with his personal physician who issued a
different assessment."

In the present case, Al berca submitted himself to be examined by the

company-designated physician upon his repatriation on January 12, 2010.
50
POEA Standard Employment Contract, Section 20(A)3.
51
698 Phil. 170 (201 2).
52
Id. at 182.
5)
830 Phil. 750(2018).
54
Id. at 769.
55
832 Phil. 363 (2018).

(145)URES - more -
 Resolution 11 G .R. No. 204102

He was then examined and treated by respondents' company-designated

physician over the course of five months. However, despite several
treatments and months of physical therapy, Alberca felt that his condition
has not improved, and thus, consulted with his doctor of choice, Dr. Magtira.
On May 29, 2010, Dr. Magtira assessed Alberca to be suffering from
20.15% of Grade 10 Disability and declared Alberca to be permanently
unfit for further sea duties. Notably, when Dr. Magtira issued his
assessment, the company-designated physician was still in the process of
evaluating Alberca's condition and was yet to issue his medical assessment.
Finally, on July 29 2010 or 168 days from Alberca's repatriation, the
company-designated physician issued his final and definitive assessment,
which found that Alberca was suffering from a 20% of Grade 12 Disability
due to the loss of function of Alberca's third finger.

Here, Alberca urges this Court to disregard the medical assessment of

the company-designated physician, simply because the same is not
automatically conclusive, and asks this Court to sustain the declaration made
by Dr. Magtira that he is unfit to resume further sea duties. This We cannot
do.

As borne by the records of this case, neither the company-designated

physician nor Alberca's doctor of choice assessed Alberca's disability as
total and permanent. In fact, Dr. Magtira declared that Alberca is suffering
merely from a 20.15% of Grade 10 Disability. In this regard, it must be
emphasized that an award for the full amount of permanent and total
disability presupposes a Grade 1 Disability. 56 Thus, We agree with the
findings of the Labor Arbiter that Alberca's claim for full disability benefits
has no basis whatsoever since Dr. Magtira himself did not assess Alberca to
be suffering from a Grade 1 Disability.

Nonetheless, if Alberca indeed thought that Dr. Magtira declared his

disability as a permanent and total one, Alberca should have complied with
the procedure laid out in the POEA Standard Employment Contract. In
instances when the medical findings of the company-designated physician
differ from the assessment of the seafarer's doctor of choice, a third doctor
may be agreed jointly by the employer and the seafarer, whose findings shall
be final and binding on both parties. 57 Pertinently, this referral to a third
doctor has been consistently held by this Court to be mandatory in nature.58
In fact, in Abundo v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, 59 this Court has
ruled that in case of disagreements between the company-designated
physician and the seafarer's chosen physician as to the seafarer's medical
condition, the referral of the dispute to a third doctor is mandatory, and the

56 Id.
57
POEA Standard Employment Contract, Section 20(A)3.
58
Dionio v. Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 217362, November 19, 20 I 8; !lustricimo v.
NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc., 834 Phil. 693 (2018).
59
G.R. No. 222348, November 20, 20 19.

(145)URES - more -
I~
 Resolution 12 G.R. No. 204102

seafarer's failure to abide thereby makes the assessment of the company-

designated physician final and binding. Considering that no third doctor
was appointed in this case, it is clear that Alberca failed to abide by this
mandatory procedure, and consequently, the findings of the company-
designated physician must be sustained.

To reiterate, there is no basis to uphold Alberca's claim that he is

suffering from permanent and total disability, and Alberca likewise failed to
comply with the mandatory procedure to refer the dispute to a third doctor.
Given the foregoing, this Court has no other recourse but to sustain the
findings of the company-designated physician that Alberca is suffering from
a 20% of Grade 12 Disability.

The Company-Designated Physician Must

Make His Assessment Within The Period
Prescribed By Law.

Alberca asseverates that the company-designated physician only has a

period of 120 days to declare a seafarer's fitness or unfitness for work, and
after the lapse of such period without any declaration from the company-
designated physician, the disability of the seafarer must automatically be
considered as permanent and total. Alberca is mistaken.

In Teekay Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. Ramoga, Jr. ,60 this Court has
categorically ruled that the mere lapse of 120 days without any declaration
from the company-designated physician regarding the seafarer's fitness or
unfitness to work does not automatically entitle the seafarer to full disability
benefits:

As it now stands, the mere lapse of 120 days from the seafarer's
repatriation without the company-designated physician's declaration
of the fitness to work of the seafarer does not entitle the latter to his
permanent total disability benefits. As laid down by this Court in Elburg
Shipmanagement Phils., Inc, et al., and in Jebsens Maritime, Inc. , Sea
Chefs Ltd., and Enrique M Aboitiz v. Florvin G. Rapiz, the following
guidelines shall govern the seafarer' s claims for permanent total disability
benefits:

1. The company-designated physician must issue a final

medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading
within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer
reported to him;

2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his

assessment within the period of 120 days, without any
justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes
permanent and total;

60
8'24 Phil. 35 (2018).

(145)URES - more -
 Resolution 13 G.R. No. 204102

3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his

assessment within the period of 120 days with a
sufficient justification (e.g., seafarer required
further medical treatment or seafarer was
uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and
treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer
has the burden to prove that the company-designated
physician has sufficient justification to extend the
period; and

4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give

his assessment within the extended period of 240 days,
then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and
total, regardless of any justification. 61

Meanwhile, in Pastrana v. Bahia Shipping Services, 62 We emphasized

the importance of complying with this l 20-day/240-day period:

The duty of the company-designated physician to issue a final and

definitive assessment of the seafarer's disability within the prescribed
periods is imperative. His failure to do so will render his findings
nugatory and transform the disability suffered by the seafarer to one
that is permanent and total. As explained by the Court in Pelagio v.
Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc.:

Otherwise stated, the company-designated

physician is required to issue a final and definite
assessment of the seafarer's disability rating within the
aforesaid 120/240-day period; otherwise, the opinions of
the company-designated and the independent
physicians are rendered irrelevant because the seafarer
is already conclusively presumed to be suffering from a
permanent and total disability, and thus, is entitled to
the benefits corresponding thereto. (Emphasis supplied;
citations omitted)

From the foregoing, it is clear that the company-designated physician

has an initial period of 120 days within which to issue a final and definitive
assessment of the seafarer's disability. Nevertheless, if the seafarer is still
required to undergo treatment after the lapse of the 120-day period (such as
in this case), such period may be extended to 240 days. However, if the
company-designated physician fails to make an assessment within the initial
120-day period or the extended 240-day period, then the seafarer is
conclusively presumed to be suffering from a permanent and total
disability and is entitled to the full disability benefits. Undoubtedly,
therefore, the mere lapse of 120 days does not automatically entitle a
seafarer to full disability benefits since the company-designated physician
may still issue an assessment within the 240-day period.

61
Id. at 44.
62
G.R. No. 227419, June 10, 2020.

(145)URES - more -
/r/J
 Resolution 14 G.R. No. 204102

In other words, there are only two instances when a seafarer is

considered to be suffering from permanent and total disability, and
consequently entitled to full disability benefits are: first, when the
company-designated physician fails to make his/her assessment within
the periods prescribed by law; and second, when the seafarer is declared
to be suffering from a Grade 1 Disability.

In this case, the company-designated physician issued his medical

assessment that Alberca is suffering from 20% of Grade 12 Disability. Such
assessment was issued on July 29, 2010 or 168 days from Alberca's
repatriation. Clearly, the company-designated physician issued his medical
assessment within the time prescribed by law.

Considering that the company-designated physician did not assess

Alberca to be suffering from a Grade 1 Disability, and the company-
designated physician was able to make a final and definitive medical
assessment within the time prescribed, Alberca cannot be considered to be
suffering from a permanent and total disability, and thus, he is not entitled to
full disability benefits.

At this juncture, this Court finds it necessary to clarify that in

disability compensation, the amount a seafarer is entitled to should be based
on the disability gradings found in the POEA Standard Employment
Contract, and is not simply determined by the number of days. The number
of days, paiiicularly the 120-day and 240-day periods, are significant, only
as to when the company-designated physician must issue his or her
assessment of the medical condition of the seafarer. Such ·periods are of little
importance when it comes to how much the seafarer is entitled to since
disability compensation is based solely on the disability gradings outlined in
the POEA Standard Employment Contract.63

Finally, We likewise note that the Pennanent Medical Unfitness

provisions of the CBA cannot justify Alberca's claim for full disability
benefits. Such provision is clear that it is the company-designated physician
who must declare the seafarer as permanently unfit for sea duties. Since no
such declaration was made by the company-designated physician, then it
stands to reason that Alberca cannot claim full disability benefits.

All said, this Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the CA
when it ruled that Alberca is not entitled to the full amount of disability
compensation for total and permanent disability. However, this Court finds it
necessary to point out that under the POEA Standard Employment Contract,
a Grade 12 Disability is equivalent to 10.45% of the maximum amount of

63
POEA Standard Employment Contract, Section 20-A(6).

(145)URES - more -
I~
 Resolution 15 G.R. No. 204102

disability benefits, 64 and not 20%, as ruled by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed
by the CA.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review

on Certiorari dated December 17, 2012 filed by petitioner Samuel M.
Alberca is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated June 28, 2012 and
the Resolution dated October 22, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in the case
entitled, "Transocean Shipmanagement (Phils.), Inc., John T Essberger
B. V , and/or Mr. Carlos S. Salinas vs. National Labor Relations Commission
.and Samuel M Alberca," docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 123285 are hereby
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The respondents are hereby
ORDERED TO PAY petitioner Samuel M . Alberca disability benefits for a
Grade 12 Disability, or 10.45% of the maximum amount of disability
benefits pursuant to the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Standard
Employment Contract.

SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J, designated additional Member per

Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

OTUAZON
1 rk of Court~
0MAY 20'22

*V ALMORES & V ALMORES LA W OFFICES (reg)

Counsel for Petitioner
Unit 14-A, 5th F loor, Royal Bay Terrace B ldg.
U.N. Ave. cor. Mabini Street
Ermita, Manila

*DEL ROSARIO & DEL ROSA RIO (reg)

Counsel for Respondents
14th Floor, Del Rosario Law Centre
th
2 1st Drive corner 20 Drive
Bonifacio Global City, 1630 Taguig

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (reg)

PPSTA Building, Banawe Street cor. Quezon Avenue
I I 00 Q uezon C ity
(N LRC LAC No. OFW [M)-07-000607-11 ;
NLRC NCR OFW [M)-06-086 17-1 0)

<>-1 POEA Sta ndard Employment Contract, Section 32.

(145)URES - more -
Resolution 16 G.R. No. 204102
August 4, 2021

JUDGMENT DIVISION (x)

Supreme Court, Manila

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)

LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
[For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-SC]

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY (x)

OFFICE OF THE REPORTER (x)
PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY (x)
Supreme CoUJi, Manila

COURT OF APPEALS (x)

Ma. Orosa Street
Ermita, I 000 Manila
CA-G.R. SP No. 123285

*with copy of the CA Decision dated 28 June 2012

Please notify the Court of any change in your address.
GR204 102. 8/04/2021(145)URES /<4.