5/24/23, 8:53 AM G.R. No.

229179

Today is Wednesday, May 24, 2023

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

G.R. No. 229179, March 29, 2022,

♦ Decision, Gesmundo, [CJ]
♦ Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Caguioa, [J]

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 229179. March 29, 2022 ]

BENHUR SHIPPING CORPORATION/SUN MARINE SHIPPING S.A. AND EDGAR B. BRUSELAS,

PETITIONERS, VS. ALEX PEÑAREDONDA RIEGO, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

GESMUNDO, C.J.:

This Appeal by  Certiorari1  seeks to reverse and set aside the September 30, 2016 Decision2  and January 6,
2017 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 142911, which annulled and set aside the July
16, 2015 Decision4 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and granted total disability benefits to Alex
Peñaredonda Riego (respondent). The NLRC upheld the February 27, 2015 Decision5  of the Labor
Arbiter  (LA)  which partially granted respondent's complaint for disability benefits and ordered Benhur Shipping
Corporation/Sun Marine Shipping S.A. and Edgar B. Bruselas  (petitioners)  to pay respondent the total amount of
US$7,465.00 pursuant to Grade 11 Disability Assessment – 1/3 loss of lifting power as determined by the company
designated physician plus 10% attorney's fees.

Antecedents

On October 8, 2013, Benhur Shipping Corporation (BSC) engaged the services of respondent to work as Chief
Cook on board the vessel "MV Hikari I," an ocean-going vessel of its foreign principal, Sun Marine Shipping
S.A.  (SMS). Subject to the provisions of the Philippine Overseas Employment Association-Standard Employment
Contract (POEA-SEC), the Contract of Employment6 executed by the parties provided for a term of 12 months with
a basic monthly salary of US$535.00 for a 48-hour work-week, with provisions for overtime pay and vacation leave
with pay. Found fit to work during the Pre-employment Medical Examination,7 respondent boarded the vessel.8

On the first week of December 2013, respondent suffered from abdominal and lower back pain while on board
the vessel. He was brought for medical check-up and examined by a doctor in Thailand and was given medications.
Respondent was recommended for repatriation for further medical evaluation.9

On December 15, 2013, respondent arrived in the Philippines and was immediately endorsed by BSC to Marine
Medical Services wherein he was attended to by Dr. Robert D. Lim (Dr. Lim), the company-designated physician, for
further medical care and treatment.10

On December 16, 2013, the company-designated physician issued the first Medical Report11  stating that
respondent was referred to a gastro-enterologist and orthopedic surgeon. The specialist reviewed respondent's
lumbosacral spine x-ray and noted normal results. It was recommended that respondent should undergo laboratory
examination, gastroscopy, ultrasound of the whole abdomen and magnetic resonance imaging  (MRI)  of the
lumbosacral spine. He was likewise requested to come back on December 17, 2013 for re-evaluation.12

On December 17, 2013, the company-designated physician issued a second Medical Report13  stating that
respondent was under the care of a gastroenterologist and orthopedic surgeon. His laboratory examination showed
normal complete blood count, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, SGPT and alkaline phosphatase. Gastroscopy
showed esophagogastroduodenal muscosa, small hiatal hernia and negative H.pylori infection. Respondent then
underwent ultrasound of the upper abdomen and MRI of the lumbosacral spine for further evaluation. He was
likewise given medication and advised to come back on December 26, 2013 for the re-evaluation with result.14

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_229179_2022.html 1/17
5/24/23, 8:53 AM G.R. No. 229179

On December 26, 2013, the company-designated physician issued a third Medical Report15  indicating that
respondent no longer claimed to have abdominal discomfort and that the ultrasound of his upper abdomen showed
normal results of his liver, gall bladder, pancreas, spleen, kidneys, urinary bladder and prostate gland. As such,
respondent was cleared from a gastro-enterologic standpoint for his hiatal hernia. He was also seen by an
orthopedic surgeon and physiatrist since he complained of an on-and-off low localized back pain, especially when
bending forward and standing from a sitting position. There was also tightness of both his hamstrings, the manual
muscle test was 5/5 on both extremities with pain upon resistance of hip flexion, while there were negative straight-
leg raising test results. Respondent's lumbosacral spine x-ray showed normal results. However, the MRI of his
lumbosacral spine showed mild lumbar spondylosis, with no evidence of disc herniation, spinal canal or foraminal
stenosis at any level. Respondent was advised to start rehabilitation, to continue his medications and to return on
January 16, 2014 for re-evaluation.16 Respondent was diagnosed to have Hiatal Hernia, L4-L5, L5-S1 Disc Bulge.17

In the fourth Medical Report18  dated January 16, 2014, the company-designated physician stated that
respondent was previously cleared gastro­-intestinal wise with regard to his hiatal hernia. He was seen by an
orthopedic surgeon and had no complaints of pain or discomfort from his lower back area. Respondent had full
range of motion of his trunk, had normal sitting and standing tolerance, and was ambulatory over all surface. The
specialist opined that respondent was cleared from an orthopedic standpoint as of the said date. He was also
advised of the proper back mechanics to prevent and minimize the recurrence of his back pain. Also on even date,
respondent signed a Certificate of Fitness to Work19 indicating that he was fit to work notwithstanding the diagnosis
that he has Hiatal Hernia, L4-L5, L5-S1 Disc Bulge.20

On February 10, 2014, the company-designated physician issued a fifth Medical Report21  stating that
respondent complained of pain on the left lower back radiating to the left lower extremity. The MRI of the
lumbosacral spine showed that the mild disc bulge at L4-L5 had not significantly changed. There was, however, no
evidence of disc herniation, spinal canal stenosis or foraminal stenosis at any level. Also, no new abnormalities were
demonstrated. Respondent was advised to continue his rehabilitation and medication, and to come back on
February 24, 2014 for re-evaluation.22  Several progress notes were issued on February 22, 2014 and March 8,
2014, which indicated that there were still no pertinent improvements and there were still persistent problems, such
as lower back pain radiating to the left leg, grade 1 tenderness on the left leg, muscle spasm on paralumbar and leg,
and tightness of hamstring.23  The company-designated physician issued a note referring respondent to Lucena
MMG General Hospital (MMG Hospital) for continued physical therapy on March 31, 2014.24

Respondent claimed that on March 28, 2014, the company-designated physician informed him that petitioners
already terminated his medical treatment.25  In a medical note addressed to the company-designated physician
dated May 12, 2014, Dr. Kharen Michelle Esmeralda  (Dr. Esmeralda), neurologist of MMG Hospital, suggested,
among others, that respondent be referred to neurosurgery to assess the degree of nerve compression and, if
possible, the decompression of the spine.26 It was added therein that neurorehabilitation will only provide transient
episodes of pain relief, and it could lead to further damage.27

On May 26, 2014, the company-designated physician issued the final Medical Report28 stating that on follow-up
check-up, respondent still complained of lower back pain radiating to the left lower extremity with no significant
improvement with physical therapy, and there was still sensory deficit on his left leg. The company-designated
physician further stated that if respondent is entitled to disability benefits, his final disability grading under the POEA
schedule of disabilities remains at Grade 11 – 1/3 loss of lifting power.29 Notably, on May 30, 2014, the company-
designated physician issued a certification that respondent has under medical/surgical evaluation treatment from
December 16, 2013 to present due to Hiatal Hernia; L4-L5, L5-S1 Disc Bulge.30

Consequently, respondent consulted a physician of his choice, Dr. Fidel M. Magtira (Dr. Magtira), for a second
medical opinion. On June 5, 2014, Dr. Magtira issued a Medical Report31 stating that respondent was permanently
disabled and permanently unfit to work in any capacity.

On June 11, 2014, respondent through his legal counsel sent a Letter32  to BSC informing the latter that "
[c]onsidering the persistent back pain he continues to suffer, he consulted his chosen medical expert to make
another assessment and he was declared permanently unfit to work."33 Respondent further requested for medical
treatment for his back pain due to disc bulge radiating to his extremities, since he had no financial capacity to
support continued treatment and therapy. Moreover, respondent requested BSC to refer him for a third medical
opinion should it continue to refuse to shoulder his treatment and therapy.34

On June 25, 2014, respondent sent another Letter35 to BSC, reiterating his request for the latter to refer him for
a third medical opinion as the medical assessments of their respective doctors differ, and to consider said
assessment as final and binding to the parties.

On June 30, 2014, respondent underwent an MRI of his lumbosacral spine at the Banawe Diagnostic MRI
Center, Inc. On July 2, 2014, Dr. Magtira issued a Medical Report36  finding respondent permanently disabled and
unfit to work in any capacity.37

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_229179_2022.html 2/17
5/24/23, 8:53 AM G.R. No. 229179
38
On July 28, 2014, respondent filed a Complaint  against petitioners for total and permanent disability benefits,
moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.39

The LA Ruling

In its February 27, 2015 Decision, the LA granted respondent's complaint for disability benefits in the total
amount of US$7,465.00 pursuant to a Grade 11 Disability Assessment – 1/3 loss of lifting power as determined by
the company designated physician plus 10% attorney's fees.40 The dispositive portion of the decision provides:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents Benhur Shipping Corporation, et al. are

hereby ordered to pay complainant Alex P. Riego the sum of US$7,465.00 pursuant to the Grade 11
disability assessment – 1/3 loss of lifting power as determined by the company designated
physician plus 10% attorney's fees.

SO ORDERED.41

The LA held that it was undeniable that the injury suffered by respondent was work-related, the same having
been sustained while he was performing his tasks on board his employer's vessel. Based on respondent's narration
of events, he was lifting heavy provisions on board the vessel when he felt pain on his lower back. The pain
worsened in the following days, and hence, he was given medical assistance and subsequently, medically
repatriated.42

The LA gave credence to the medical assessment provided by the company-designated physician. It found that
from the medical report rendered by Dr. Magtira, no disability grading was issued. Rather, it was merely declared
that respondent was already permanently unfit to work in any capacity as a seafarer. Likewise, Dr. Magtira did not
specifically pronounce respondent's illness. The reason for this appears to be because L4-L5, L5-S1 Disc Bulge is
not proper for Grade 1 disability. Respondent does not appear to be suffering from such condition. It was never
stated that respondent needs to be assisted by crutches when walking or that his sickness caused him incontinence.
The absence of a third medical opinion further compounded the situation. The LA concluded that the company-
designated physician's assessment must prevail in view of the facts obtaining in this case.43

The NLRC Ruling

In its July 16, 2015 Decision, the NLRC affirmed the ruling of the LA, to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is denied for lack of merit. The assailed
Decision of Labor Arbiter Joanne G. [Hernandez]-Lazo dated February 27, 2015 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.44

The NLRC held that respondent's claim for permanent and total disability benefits is without basis at
all.45 Respondent's condition does not constitute Grade 1 disability as provided under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC.
According to the NLRC, the record is bereft of any showing that respondent needed to be assisted by crutches when
walking or that his illness caused him incontinence of urine and feces.46

Furthermore, respondent's evidence casts serious doubt on the findings that he suffered permanent and total
disability. In stark contrast to the detailed medical reports of the company-designated physician, a reading of the first
Medical Report47 of Dr. Magtira, dated June 5, 2014 would show that it was not supported by any diagnostic test or
procedure sufficient to refute the results of those administered to respondent by the company-designated physician.
Dr. Magtira's assessment of "permanent disability" for respondent merely hinged on a physical examination
conducted during a single consultation with him.48

On the other hand, the company-designated physician conducted two MRI tests upon respondent's lumbosacral
spine, the first on December 16, 2013, and the second on February 10, 2014. Both of respondent's lumbosacral
spine MRI tests showed that his mild disc bulge at L4-L5 had not significantly changed, there being no evidence of
disc herniation, spinal canal stenosis or foraminal stenosis at any level. No new abnormalities were also
demonstrated.49

The NLRC declared that even if the findings of respondent's private physician were to be taken into
consideration, the company-designated physician's assessment should prevail over that of the former. The
company-designated physician had thoroughly examined and treated respondent for more than five months until the
issuance of a disability grading. Conversely, respondent's private physician only attended to him once. Under these
circumstances, the assessment of the company-designated physician is more credible for having been arrived at
after months of medical attendance and diagnosis, compared with the assessment of respondent's private physician
made on the basis of a single consultation and existing medical records.50

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_229179_2022.html 3/17
5/24/23, 8:53 AM G.R. No. 229179
51
In its August 28, 2015 Resolution,   the NLRC denied respondent's motion for reconsideration. Hence,
respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC
when it affirmed the decision of the LA.

The CA Ruling

In its September 30, 2016, Decision, the CA reversed and set aside the ruling of the NLRC. The dispositive
portion of the decision, reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby  GRANTED. The Decision dated July 16, 2015 is
hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Alex Peñaredonda Riego is hereby awarded Total
Permanent Disability Benefits in the amount of Sixty Thousand (US$60,000.00) US Dollars and Ten
Percent (10%) Attorney's Fees.

SO ORDERED.52 (emphases and italics in the original; citation omitted)

The CA held that if the treatment of 120 days is extended to 240 days, but still no medical assessment is given,
the finding of permanent and total disability becomes conclusive.53  Respondent should be granted total and
permanent disability benefits since no assessment was issued for a disability grade before the lapse of the 120-day
period.

The CA noted that respondent was repatriated on December 15, 2013 and was only assessed by the company-
designated physician as suffering from Grade 11 disability on May 26, 2014 or after the lapse of 156 days. No
justifiable reason was shown why it took that long for the company-designated physician to come up with the
assessment. Respondent's Progress Note54  dated January 15, 2014 indicated that respondent still suffered
persistent lower back pain and paralumbar muscle spasm and was prescribed to continue with his rehabilitation.
Worse, the Grade 11 disability assessment was only given almost two months after respondent terminated his
medical treatment on March 28, 2014.55

Petitioners failed to come up with the disability assessment within 120 days without justifiable reason and with
respondent being cooperative with the medical treatment that was cut short without proper notice given. Respondent
must be awarded total permanent disability benefits.56

The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration in its January 6, 2017 Resolution.

Hence, this appeal by certiorari, raising the following grounds for allowance of the petition:

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED PALPABLE ERROR WHEN IT HEAVILY

RELIED IN THE DECISION OF  ELBURG [SHIPMANAGEMENT], PHILS., INC., ET AL. VS.
QUIOGUE, JR.  IN HOLDING THAT THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN'S FINAL
DISABILITY ASSESSMENT OF GRADE 11 ISSUED MORE THAN 120 DAYS SHOULD BE
DISREGARDED FOR THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN'S FAILURE TO STATE
JUSTIFICATION WHY THE TREATMENT SHOULD EXCEED 120 DAYS.

II

UNDER THE POEA-SEC, THE LAW THAT APPLIES BETWEEN THE PARTIES, DISABILITIES
ARE NOT ALWAYS REGARDED AS PERMANENT/TOTAL. THUS, THE POEA-SEC INCLUDES
THE SCHEDULE OF DISABILITIES WITH EQUIVALENT DISABILITY COMPENSATION, WHICH
MUST BE APPLIED. THEREFORE, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
PALPABLE ERROR IN NOT UPHOLDING THE FINAL DISABILITY ASSESSMENT OF  GRADE
11 AND IN DISREGARDING AND RENDERING NUGATORY THE POEA-SEC PROVISIONS ON
DISABILITY SCHEDULE.57 (emphasis and italics in the original; citation omitted)

In their petition for review, petitioners aver that the CA palpably erred when it held that the respondent is
permanently disabled simply because the company-designated physician issued the final disability assessment of
Grade 11 beyond the 120-day period without any justification for the extension of treatment.58 The mere lapse of the
120 days is not a sufficient ground to warrant the award of permanent/total disability benefits to
seafarers.59  Petitioners maintain that the disability shall be based solely on the disability gradings provided under
Sec. 32 of the POEA-SEC, and shall not be measured or determined by the number of days a seafarer was under
treatment or the number of days in which sickness allowance was paid.60 Additionally, there is no reason to doubt
the medical evaluation given by the company-designated physician as the same enjoys the presumption of validity
absent any showing that said medical evaluation was given fraudulently. Respondent failed to adduce sufficient
evidence to rebut the said presumption by showing that the company-designated physician's findings were tainted

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_229179_2022.html 4/17
5/24/23, 8:53 AM G.R. No. 229179

with bias, malice or bad faith. Therefore, with the finding of the company-designated physician that respondent's
disability was only partial, Grade 11 should be controlling.61

Moreover, petitioners aver that non-referral to a third physician, whose decision shall be considered as final and
binding, constitutes a breach of the POEA-SEC.62  Petitioners assert that respondent failed to initiate third doctor
referral. Petitioners argue that while respondent, indeed, sent a letter to BSC to refer him for a third medical opinion,
he failed to disclose therein the contradicting findings of his physician of choice. Undeniably, the letter of respondent
through his counsel did not include the second medical opinion from his own doctor, Dr. Magtira.63 It was respondent
and his counsel who refused to pursue the third doctor referral. It is very apparent that respondent had no intention
to be referred to a third doctor from the very beginning. His letter of request, without his doctor's medical report and
his continuous refusal to provide a copy of the same, would only confirm that said letter was merely sent to
somehow show compliance which was indubitably empty.64

In his Comment,65 respondent maintains that the CA aptly awarded him total and permanent disability benefits.
Respondent avers that if the treatment of 120 days is extended to 240 days, but no medical assessment is still
given, the finding of permanent and total disability becomes conclusive. He claims that the company-designated
physician must perform some significant act before he can invoke the exceptional 240-day period under the IRR. It
is only fitting that the company-designated physician must provide a sufficient justification to extend the original 120-
day period. Otherwise, under the law, the seafarer must be granted the relief of permanent and total disability
benefits due to such noncompliance. Further, respondent alleges that the evidence clearly showed that he is
permanently unfit and was advised to have a change of lifestyle including the kind of maritime work he was usually
engaged in as he is permanently disqualified to return to his previous occupation as seafarer. These result to
permanent loss of earning capacity. As such, the CA did not commit palpable error in awarding total and permanent
disability benefits to respondent as his medical condition is in accord with the prevailing jurisprudence and
supported by evidence.66

Respondent likewise maintains that he repeatedly requested for petitioners to refer him for a third medical
opinion. However, petitioners refused to refer him for third medical opinion in violation of the conflict resolution
provision in the POEA-SEC.67  Given the circumstances under which respondent pursued his claim, especially the
fact that he insisted on referral to a third doctor though petitioners refused, respondent's medical certification from
his chosen medical expert must be upheld.68

In their Reply,69 petitioners aver that a finding of an illness or disability is not tantamount to full disability benefits,
particularly in cases involving seafarers. It must not be overlooked or ignored the fact that employment contracts of
seafarers, unlike other employment contracts which involve land-based employees, are governed by the POEA-
SEC. The POEA-SEC was specially crafted and written while taking into consideration the rights and the welfare of
both parties in the contract for sea-based employment – the employer and the seaman. Under the POEA Contract,
there is a schedule of disability grading which simply means that not all disabilities by the seafarers shall be
regarded as full.70

Moreover, respondent maintains that in order to overturn the opinion and findings of the company-designated
physician, the medical opinion of the seafarer's doctor must be supported by the third doctor's opinion without which,
the company-designated physician's opinion will prevail. It is, therefore, puzzling why respondent did not bring to
petitioners' attention the contrary opinions of his doctors and suggest that they seek a third opinion. Petitioners
likewise reiterate their averment that the mere lapse of the 120 days is not a sufficient ground to warrant the award
of permanent/total disability benefits to seafarers.71

The Court's Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

At the outset, the issue of whether respondent's illness is compensable as total and permanent disability is
essentially a question of fact, which this Court would generally not disturb. The general rule is that only questions of
law may be raised and resolved by this Court on petitions brought under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, because the
Court, not being a trier of facts, is not duty-bound to reexamine and calibrate the evidence on record.72 In this case,
however, the findings of the CA are contradictory with that of the NLRC. The conflicting factual findings make this
case an exception to the general rule that only questions of law may be raised before this Court in a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45. For this reason, the Court gives due course to this petition.73

Further, the Court finds that it is imperative to resolve this case on the merits as it presents novel issues, such
as, the form and content of the request for referral to a third doctor to resolve conflicting medical opinions involving a
claim for disability benefits.

In the case at bar, there is no question that respondent suffered an injury while working on board the ship of
petitioners. As a result of said injury, respondent was rendered disabled to perform his usual work and lost earning
capacity. The issue now raised by the parties is the extent of the disability, whether partial or total and permanent,

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_229179_2022.html 5/17
5/24/23, 8:53 AM G.R. No. 229179

suffered by respondent. While petitioners do not dispute that respondent's injuries are work-related, they argue that
he is only entitled to disability benefits under Grade 11, as against the findings of the CA that respondent is entitled
to Grade 1 disability benefits or total and permanent disability benefits.

Extension of the 120-day period to 240

days

The seafarers' employment is governed by the contracts they signed at the time of engagement. As long as the
stipulations therein are not contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy, they have the force of law between
the parties. Nonetheless, while the seafarer and his employer are governed by their mutual agreement, the POEA
Rules and Regulations require that the POEA-SEC be integrated in every seafarer's contract.74

Under the 2010 POEA-SEC, the company-designated physician is primarily vested with responsibility to
determine the seafarer's disability grading or fitness to work.75  In  Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v.
Quiogue76  (Elburg), the Court set forth the following rules whenever there is a claim for total and permanent
disability benefits by a seafarer:

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;

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.77

To reiterate, for a company-designated physician to avail of the extended 240-day period, he or she must
perform some complete and definite medical assessment to show that the illness still requires medical attendance
beyond the 120 days, but not to exceed 240 days. In such case, the temporary total disability period is extended to a
maximum of 240 days. Without sufficient justification for the extension of the treatment period, a seafarer's disability
shall be conclusively presumed to be permanent and total.78  The seaman may, of course, also be declared fit to
work at any time such declaration is justified by his medical condition.79  Further, even if the 120-day period was
extended to 240 days, 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.

Here, respondent was repatriated on December 15, 2013 and was immediately referred to the company-
designated physician. Petitioners claim that the 120-day period was extended to 240 days as respondent still
required further medical treatment, which was implied in several Progress Notes80 stating that respondent needed
further medical attention and/or rehabilitation beyond the lapse of the 120-day period. Petitioners add that since the
final medical report was issued after 156 days from repatriation, then it is within the extended 240-day period.

The Court is not convinced.

In the Progress Note81 dated March 29, 2014, or on the 106th day of the 120-day period, the specialist noted
that respondent was still suffering from lower back pain radiating to leg (PS 8/10) aggravated by prolonged sitting,
standing, and walking.82  Afterwards, respondent went to MMG Hospital for rehabilitation as referred by the
company-designated physician. In her May 12, 2014 Note, Dr. Esmeralda, neurologist of MMG Hospital, suggested,
among others, that respondent be referred to neurosurgery to assess the degree of nerve compression and, if
possible, the decompression of the spine.83 It was added therein that neurorehabilitation will only provide transient
episodes of pain relief, and could lead to further damage.84

However, the suggestion from MMG Hospital that respondent required further evaluation and treatment
regarding his nerve compression and decompression of the spine, fell on deaf ears. Instead, the company-
designated physician issued his final medical report on May 26, 2014, stating that respondent still complains of low
back pain radiating to the left lower extremity with no significant improvement with physical therapy, and there is still
sensory deficit on the left leg.85

Further, the final medical report stated that "[t]he specialist opines that if patient is entitled to a disability, his final
disability grading remains at Grade 11-1/3 loss of lifting power."86 As the CA aptly observed, the report did not even

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_229179_2022.html 6/17
5/24/23, 8:53 AM G.R. No. 229179

indicate the name of the alleged specialist who made such final disability grading, making the final medical report
doubtful.

Glaringly, after the issuance of the said final medical report (on May 26, 2014) by the company-designated
physician, the same physician issued a Certification dated May 30, 2014 indicating that respondent has undergone
medical/surgical evaluation treatment to Hiatal Hernia; L4-L5, L5-S1 Disc Bulge from December 16, 2013 until the
date of the issuance of the same.87  This evidently demonstrates that the assessment of the medical condition of
respondent was still continuing and not conclusive even after the company-designated physician issued his May 26,
2014 Final Medical Report.

Accordingly, the May 26, 2014 Medical Report issued by the company-designated physician cannot be treated
as the final medical assessment contemplated by the POEA-SEC and the Elburg case. Thus, even if the 120-day
period is extended to 240 days, there was still no proper final medical assessment issued. As provided in Elburg, 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.

This was likewise reiterated by the Court in  Razonable v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc.,88  wherein this Court
held that the failure of the company-designated physician to issue a final and valid assessment transforms the
temporary total disability to permanent total disability, regardless of the disability grade.  89  Hence, it was
unnecessary for the seafarer to even refer the findings of the company-designated doctors to his own doctor. Such
conflict-resolution mechanism only takes effect if the company-designated physician issues a valid and definite
medical assessment. Without such valid final and definitive assessment from the company-designated physicians,
the law already steps in to consider the seafarer's disability as total and permanent.90

Failure of petitioners to comply with the

request of referral to a third doctor

Even assuming  arguendo  that the company-designated physician issued a proper final medical assessment
within the extended 240-day period, the Court finds that respondent is still entitled to permanent and total disability
benefits and that petitioners erred in not complying with the request for referral to a third doctor.

The referral to a third doctor has been held by this Court to be a mandatory procedure as a consequence of the
provision under the POEA-SEC that the company-designated doctor's assessment should prevail. In other words,
the company could insist on its disability rating even against a contrary opinion by another doctor, unless the
seafarer expresses his disagreement by asking for the referral to a third doctor who shall make his or her
determination and whose decision is final and binding on the parties.91

Petitioners argue that while respondent sent a letter of request for a referral to a third doctor, the said letter did
not include the medical opinion from respondent's physician, Dr. Magtira. They claim that even in the NLRC,
respondent failed to bring his own doctor's report. Thus, petitioners conclude that respondent had no intention to be
referred to a third doctor from the very beginning, and that the letter of request without his doctor's medical report,
was merely an empty compliance.92

The argument is unavailing.

Sec. 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC provides for a mechanism to challenge the validity of the company-designated
physician's assessment. The said provision states that:

If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be
agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and
binding on both parties.93

On the other hand, in Carcedo v. Maine Marine Philippines, Inc.94 (Carcedo), the Court stated that:

To definitively clarify how a conflict situation should be handled, upon notification that the
seafarer disagrees with the company doctor's assessment based on the duly and fully disclosed
contrary assessment from the seafarer's own doctor, the seafarer shall then signify his intention to
resolve the conflict by the referral of the conflicting assessments to a third doctor whose ruling,
under the POEA-SEC, shall be final and binding on the parties. Upon notification, the company
carries the burden of initiating the process for the referral to a third doctor commonly agreed
between the parties.95

Verily, it is the duty of the seafarer to notify his employer that he or she intends to refer the conflict to a third
doctor. Once notified, the burden shifts to the employer to complete the process of referral to a third doctor so that,
once and for all, the medical assessment of the seafarer will be put to rest.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_229179_2022.html 7/17
5/24/23, 8:53 AM G.R. No. 229179

Analyzing Sec. 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC and Carcedo, it was neither stated nor required therein that when the
seafarer sends a request for a referral to a third doctor to the employer, the seafarer must mandatorily attach the
medical report of his own medical doctor to such request. Notably, it is not the employer who will assess the medical
report of the seafarer's chosen physician; rather, it will be the labor tribunals where the complaint for disability
benefits is filed that would assess the medical report. As the record shows, the medical report of respondent's
chosen physician was indeed attached to his position paper before the LA,96 thus, it could be fully assessed by the
labor tribunals. Succinctly, the argument of petitioners that the letter-request of respondent was improper, because
the medical report of his chosen physician was not attached, deserves scant consideration.

As to what the seafarer's letter-request for a referral to a third doctor should contain, Mangubat, Jr. v. Dalisay
Shipping Corporation,97 is instructive:

Jurisprudence has elaborated on the requirements for the validity and procedure for disputing
the assessment of the company-designated physician. For the company-designated physician's
assessment to be considered valid, it must be timely made and must state the fitness or degree of
disability of the seafarer.

Once the company-designated physician has issued the valid assessment, the seafarer may
dispute it by referring to his own doctor, thus:

x x x resort to a second opinion must be done after the assessment by the

company-designated physician precisely to dispute the said assessment. Such
assessment front the company-designated physician, to reiterate, must be definite
and timely issued. x x x

The seafarer has then the duly to signify his intent to challenge the company-designated
physician's assessment and, in turn, the employer must respond by setting into motion the process
or choosing the third doctor. As the Court ruled in Pastor v. Bibby Shipping Philippines, Inc.:

Corollarily, should the seafarer signify his intent to challenge the company-
designated physician's assessment through the assessment made by his own
doctor, the employer must respond by setting into motion the process of choosing a
third doctor who, as the 2010 POEA-SEC provides, can rule with finality on the
disputed medical situation. In such case, no specific period is required by law within
which the parties may seek the opinion of a third doctor, and may do so even during
the conciliation and mediation stage to abbreviate the proceedings.

The Court further explained in  Sunit v. OSM Maritime Services, Inc. that for the third doctor's
assessment to be valid and binding between the parties, the assessment must be definite and
conclusive:

Indeed, the employer and the seafarer are bound by the disability assessment
of the third-party physician in the event that they choose to appoint one.
Nonetheless, similar to what is required of the company-designated doctor, the
appointed third-party physician must likewise arrive at a definite and conclusive
assessment of the seafarer's disability or fitness to return to work before his or her
opinion can be valid and binding between the parties.

The foregoing shows that it is required for both the company-designated physician and the third
doctor to arrive at a definite and conclusive assessment of the fitness or disability rating of the
seafarer for their assessment to be considered as valid.

The same standards to determine the validity of the assessment should be the same for
the company-designated physician, seafarer's physician, and the third doctor. Thus, in order
for the seafarer to dispute the assessment of the company-designated physician, the
assessment of the seafarer's doctor should state the seafarer's  fitness to work or the
disability rating.98 (emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)

Accordingly, what is required from the medical opinion of the seafarer's chosen physician is that there be a
statement regarding the seafarer's fitness to work OR the disability rating. Consequently, as long as the seafarer's
letter-request for referral to a third doctor sent to the employer indicates the seafarer's doctor's assessment of the
seafarer's fitness to work or the disability rating, which is contrary to the company-designated physician's
assessment, then that suffices to set in motion the process of choosing a third doctor. Indeed, the seafarer is merely
a layman and not a medical professional; thus, he is not expected to indicate every medical term in his letter-request
for referral to a third doctor. Stating the seafarer's fitness to work or the disability rating in the letter-request for
referral to a third doctor would constitute as adequate compliance.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_229179_2022.html 8/17
5/24/23, 8:53 AM G.R. No. 229179

Pursuant to Carcedo, when the letter-request for referral to a third doctor indicates the seafarer's fitness to work
or the disability rating according to his own physician, then the seafarer is deemed to have duly and fully disclosed
the contrary assessment of his own doctor, and the seafarer can signify his intention to resolve the conflict through
referral of the conflicting assessments to a third doctor whose ruling, under the POEA-SEC, shall be final and
binding on the parties.

In this case, the June 11, 2014 Letter-request of respondent to petitioners for referral to a third doctor states:

As our client was assessed with disability Grade 11 and his therapy was discontinued by the
company-designated physician last 28 March 2014, [considering] the persistent back pain he
continues to suffer, he consulted his chosen medical expert to make another assessment and
he was declared permanently unfit.

Our client requests for further treatment of his back pain due to disc bulge radiating to his
extremities. He has no financial capacity to support continued treatment and therapy. Nevertheless,
should you continue to refuse to shoulder his therapy and treatment, we will invite your
good office for a Third Medical Opinion.99 (emphases supplied)

However, petitioners ignored respondent's letter-request for referral to a third doctor. Nevertheless, respondent
sent another Letter-request dated June 25, 2014 for referral to a third doctor, to wit:

On 25 June 2014, Mr. Riego was informed by the company-designated clinic, the Marine Medical
Clinic at Metropolitan Hospital, that his medical evaluation and/or consultation was already
terminated by your office. As you know, he was required to come and report to the company-
designated doctor on the said date but he was no longer entertained due to your advice. As Mr.
Riego was already assessed with disability Grade 11 and his therapy was discontinued by the
company-designated physician last 28 March 2014,  and considering that his chosen medical
expert declared him permanently unfit.

In view of the above, we invite your good office to refer Mr. Riego for a Third Medical Opinion
as the medical assessments by the respective doctors differ and to consider his assessment
final and binding to the parties.100 (emphases supplied)

Again, the June 25, 2014 Letter-request of respondent for referral to a third doctor was disregarded by
petitioners.

The Court finds that the June 11, 2014 and June 25, 2014 Letter-requests of respondent to petitioners were
sufficient compliance with Sec. 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC. Both letters stated that the chosen medical expert of
respondent stated that he was permanently unfit, referring to the seafarer's fitness to work. The June 25, 2014 Letter
even expressly stated that the medical opinions of the respective doctors (the company-designated physician and
respondent's chosen doctor) differ. As a result, both letters requested that a third medical opinion be considered.
These letter-requests of respondent to petitioners constitute as sufficient notification to proceed with the process of
referral to the third doctor.

As stated in Carcedo, upon notification, the employer carries the burden of initiating the process for referral to a
third doctor commonly agreed on between the parties. However, in this case, upon receipt of the letter-requests from
respondent for referral to a third doctor, petitioners did absolutely nothing. Petitioners simply ignored said letters
despite the fact that these documents expressly stated that respondent was declared permanently unfit by his
chosen physician, referring to his fitness to work, and that the medical opinions of their respective doctors differ.

If petitioners genuinely believed that respondent should have attached the medical opinion of his chosen
physician in his letter-requests, they could have simply replied to those letters and relayed such. However,
petitioners chose inaction. Evidently, the Court cannot reward petitioners' apathy towards respondent's plight.
In Saso v. 88 Aces Maritime Service, Inc.,101 the Court held:

x x x  It bears to stress that in the same way that a seafarer has the duty to faithfully
comply with and observe the terms and conditions of the POEA-SEC, the employer also has
the duty to provide proof that the procedures laid therein were followed. And in case of doubt
in the evidence presented by the employer, the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the
seafarer pursuant to the principle that the employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its
evidence and not the weakness of that adduced by the employee.102 (emphasis supplied)

Notably, a review of recent jurisprudence show that most seafarer-disability cases filed before the Court are
often dismissed because of the failure of the seafarer to initiate referral to a third doctor, which is a mandatory
requirement. In  Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. San Juan,103  the Court held that the seafarer was duty-
bound to actively request that the disagreement between his physician's findings and that of the findings of the
company-designated physician be referred to a final and binding third opinion. Failure to request or refer the
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_229179_2022.html 9/17
5/24/23, 8:53 AM G.R. No. 229179

conflicting findings to a third doctor led to the dismissal of the seafarer's claim for disability benefits.104  Similarly,
in Idul v. Alster Int'l Shipping Services, Inc.,105 it was held that the seafarer must actively or expressly request for the
referral to a third doctor,106 which is a mandatory procedure.107 Failure to comply therewith is considered a breach of
the POEA-SEC, and renders the assessment by the company-designated physician binding on the parties.108

However, respondent's plight is different from the above-cited cases. Here, respondent, as a seafarer, was
completely prudent and compliant by sending the letter-requests to petitioners for a referral to a third doctor. In such
rare fashion, respondent indeed paid attention to his obligations under the POEA-SEC by requesting referral to a
third doctor before filing a complaint for disability benefits before the LA. He recognized the mandatory procedure
regarding the referral to a third doctor in case of conflict between the medical opinions of the company-designated
physician and his physician of choice. He even sent two letter-requests to petitioners consistently requesting referral
to a third doctor. This shows the utmost good faith of respondent in complying with the POEA-SEC.

Regrettably, petitioners did not reciprocate respondent's good faith-compliance. Instead, they displayed
indifference to the prescribed mandatory rules of the POEA-SEC. They tried to rationalize their inaction by providing
an afterthought excuse that the letter-requests should have contained the medical report of respondent's chosen
physician, when the POEA-SEC does not even mandate such requirement. Accordingly, petitioners' obliviousness to
the mandatory procedure of referral to a third doctor must be taken against them.

Assessment of respondent's disability

The consequence that the employer should face for failing to entertain a request for a referral to a third doctor
by the seafarer has been discussed in  Rodelas v. MST Marine Services (Phils.).109  In the said case, there were
conflicting medical assessments of the company-designated physician and the seafarer's chosen physician. The
seafarer therein requested for a third medical assessment but the employer did not act on it despite numerous
requests for referral.110 The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, on its own, resolved the conflicting medical opinions. The
Court upheld such findings, to wit:

In this case, Dr. Nolasco gave a Grade 11 disability rating to petitioner's condition without
surgery. It does not escape this Court that Dr. Nolasco may have given a disability rating more
favorable to the respondent. It is also apparent that respondent tried to downplay its failure to
accede to petitioner's request for a referral to a third doctor. This Court relies on the findings
of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators that there is no incompatibility in the medical opinion of
Dr. Nolasco and that of Dr. Runas:

The company-designated physician assessed complainant's disability Grade

11, while Dr. Runas, complainant's doctor, did not give any Specific grade but
assessed complainant to be permanently unfit for sea duty in whatever capacity
with permanent disability. The company doctor based his assessment on the gravity
or the medical significance of the injury while Dr. Runas based his assessment in
relation to nature of work of the seafarer. It must be noted that these assessments
are not incompatible with each other. Both speak of disability. The only difference is
the determination of whether or not complainant is permanently and totally disabled.

And since there was no referral to the third doctor because of the inaction
of respondents despite the repeated manifestations of willingness to undergo
third assessment by complainant, this Panel took the cudgel to study and
decide the contradicting medical opinions of the parties and related
jurisprudence.  In  HFS Philippines, Inc. v. Pilar, the Court held that claimant may
dispute the company-designated physician's report by seasonably consulting
another doctor. In such a case, the medical report issued by the latter shall be
evaluated by the labor tribunal and the court based on its inherit merit.

After judicious evaluation of the medical opinions of the parties. We find reason
on the medical assessment of Dr. Renato Runas. As mentioned earlier, both
opinions of the doctors speak of disability. They only differed as to whether the latter
is permanently or totally disabled. Dr. Renato Runas, as a surgeon specializing in
orthopedics and trauma injuries, merely elucidated the impact of complainant's
injury to the nature of his work as a seaman. And true enough, the same is
compatible with determining the nature of permanent total disability, which is
"disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of
similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work
which a person of his mentality and attainment could do.”

xxxx

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_229179_2022.html 10/17
5/24/23, 8:53 AM G.R. No. 229179

Based on the totality of evidence, it is reasonable that without surgery, petitioner could not have
been declared fit for duty as Chief Cook. This explains the numerous opportunities respondent gave
to petitioner to consider surgery and risk the chance of improvement. Contrary to respondent's
suggestion, it was not petitioner's indecision that prevented him from pursuing his usual work.
Rather, it is precisely his strenuous work aboard the MV Sparta that resulted to his
disability.111 (emphases supplied)

Indeed, when the employer fails to act on the seafarer's valid request for referral to a third doctor, the tribunals
and courts are empowered to conduct its own assessment to resolve the conflicting medical opinions of the
company-designated physician and the seafarer's chosen physician based on the totality of evidence. The employer
simply cannot invoke the conclusiveness of the company-designated physician's medical opinion  vis­à-vis  the
seafarer's chosen physician's medical opinion when it is because the employer's own inaction and neglect that the
medical assessment was not referred to a third doctor.

In this case, the May 26, 2014 Final Medical Report of the company-designated physician, and both the June 5,
2014 and July 2, 2014 Medical Reports of the seafarer's chosen physician, consistently held that respondent indeed
suffered a disability. These reports merely differ on the extent of the disability suffered by respondent.

The Court finds that respondent is suffering from permanent disability, which renders him unfit to work in any
capacity as a seafarer.

The May 26, 2014 Final Medical Report of the company-designated physician stated that respondent still
complains of low back pain radiating to the left lower extremity with no significant improvement with physical
therapy, and that there is still sensory deficit on the left leg.112 It also stated that "[t]he specialist opines that if patient
is entitled to a disability, his final disability grading remains at Grade 11-1/3 loss of lifting power.”113 But, as stated
earlier, the report never identified the particular specialist who gave such disability rating. Further, the final medical
report of the company-designated physician did not indicate whether respondent was fit to work or whether he could
return to his previous occupation as a seafarer despite suffering such disability.

As pointed out earlier, the recommendations of Dr. Esmeralda in her May 12, 2014 Report,114 that respondent be
referred to neurosurgery to assess the degree of nerve compression and, if possible, the decompression of the
spine to prevent further damage to his spine, was never addressed by the final medical report of the company-
designated physician. Even after the company-designated physician issued his final medical report on May 26,
2014, he still issued a Certification115 dated May 30, 2014 to the effect that respondent's evaluation and treatment
was still continuing. Accordingly, the Court cannot give full credence to the May 26, 2014 Final Medical Report
issued by the company-designated physician regarding the extent of respondent's disability.

On the other hand, the June 5, 2014 Medical Report of respondent's chosen physician explained the disability
suffered by respondent, to wit:

Because of the chronicity of the patient's symptoms, it is best to consider him as permanently
disabled. Prolonged relief is less likely if no permanent modification in the patient's activities is
made. He should therefore refrain from activities producing torsional stress on the back and those
that require repetitive bending and lifting. He is now therefore permanently UNFIT TO WORK in any
capacity at his previous occupation. Having him resume his regular duties will only lead to frequent
absences from illness, underperformance, and lost time at work. It is also necessary that in order to
avoid the risk of a more serious disability, Mr. Riego should permanently modify his activities and
lifestyle.116

After respondent underwent an MRI on June 30, 2014, his chosen physician issued another Medical Report,
dated July 2, 2014, confirming his findings that respondent was indeed permanently disabled and unfit to work as a
seafarer:

Result of MRI of the lumbosacral spine done at Banawe Diagnostic MRI Center, INC. dated: June
30, 2014.

IMPRESSION:

1. L4-L5 diffuse disc bulge along with ligamentum flavum and bilateral facet joint hyperthrophy
causing compression of the anterior thecal sac, mild spinal canal stenosis and bilateral
moderate neural foraminal stenosis. A right paracentral annular tear is also seen.

2. No evident intradural lesion.

Mr. Riego continues to experience back pain. His back is stiff, making it difficult for hint to bend
and pick up objects from the floor. He could not lift heavy objects. Sitting or standing for a long time,
makes his discomfort worse. He has [difficulty] running, and climbing up or going down the stairs.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_229179_2022.html 11/17
5/24/23, 8:53 AM G.R. No. 229179

The demands of a Seaman's work are heavy. Mr. Riego has lost his pre injury capacity and is not
capable of working at his previous occupation. He is now permanent disable.117

Indeed, with respondent's disability, he cannot anymore return to his occupation as a seafarer. He will be unable
to perform the tasks required of him as a seafarer. More, the records do not show that respondent was indeed able
to return to work as a seafarer.

The Court emphasizes anew that in disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather,
the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one's earning capacity.118 Considering respondent's condition, it
is highly improbable for him to perform his usual tasks as seafarer on any vessel which effectively disables him from
earning wages in the same kind of work or that of a similar nature for which he was trained.

Verily, the occupation that sustains his livelihood is now a thing of the past due to the disability he suffered while
employed by petitioners. Respondent's disability resulted to his loss of earning capacity and, therefore, entitles him
to permanent and total disability benefits.

Monetary Awards and Interests

The Court laid down the guidelines regarding the imposition of legal interest in Nacar v. Gallery Frames119 in this
wise:

I. When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts or quasi-
delicts is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for damages. The provisions under Title
XVIII on ""Damages" of the Civil Code govern in determining the measure of recoverable
damages.

II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory
damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows:

1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of

money,  i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that
which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall
itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence
of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum to be computed from
default,  i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the
provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.

2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached,

an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at
the  discretion of the court  at the rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however,
shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages, except when or until the
demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the
demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run
from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil
Code), but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time
the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the
judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may
be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the
computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally
adjudged. 1âшphi1

3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and
executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or
paragraph 2, above, shall be 6%  per annum  from such finality until its
satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a
forbearance of credit.

And, in addition to the above, judgments that have become final and executory prior
to July 1, 2013, shall not be disturbed and shall continue to be implemented
applying the rate of interest fixed therein.120 (italics in the original)

Indeed, the award for payment of a sum of money will inevitably place the losing party in the shoes of a
judgment debtor; while the winning party, in the position of a judgment creditor. In this regard, Art. 2209 of the Civil
Code states that if the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the
indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon,
and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six percent (6%) per annum.121

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_229179_2022.html 12/17
5/24/23, 8:53 AM G.R. No. 229179

Applying the above-mentioned guidelines, and in line with prevailing jurisprudence, all monetary awards in favor
of respondent shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this decision until
fully paid.122 The period from the finality of the award until its payment constitutes a loan or forbearance of money for
which petitioners should be made to pay interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum.123

Further, in line with jurisprudence, obligations in foreign currency may be discharged in Philippine currency
based on the prevailing rate at the time of payment.124 Thus, as properly held by the CA, respondent is entitled to
total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$60,000.00 at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time
of payment.

Final Note

The Court reminds both the employees and the employers of every crew or manning industry to strictly observe
the mandatory procedure on the referral to a third doctor in cases of conflict between the medical opinions of the
company-designated physician and the seafarer's chosen physician. It is only through this compulsory procedure
that assessment of the disability of the seafarer can be resolved with finality. Consequently, the procedure laid down
by the POEA-SEC requires mandatory fulfilment by both the employer and the seafarer. If either of the parties
disregards the good faith compliance of the other, the legal consequences shall be borne by the erring party.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 30, 2016 Decision and January 6, 2017
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 142911
are  AFFIRMED  with  MODIFICATION. Petitioners are hereby  ORDERED  to  PAY  respondent Alex
Peñaredonda Riego total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$60,000.00 at the
prevailing rate of exchange at the time of payment, as well as attorney's fees equivalent to ten
percent (10%) of the total monetary award. Finally, all monetary awards shall earn legal interest at
the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until full payment.

SO ORDERED.

Inting, Gaerlan, and Dimaampao, JJ., concur.

Caguioa, J., See Concurring and Dissenting Opinion.

Footnotes
1
 Rollo, pp. 46-98.
2
 Id. at 12-34; penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez
and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurring.
3
 Id. at 36-41.
4
  CA  rollo, pp. 31-45; penned by Presiding Commissioner Joseph Gerard E. Mabilog, with Commissioners
Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra and Nieves E. Vivar-De Castro, concurring.
5
 Id. at 138-147; penned by Labor Arbiter Joanne G. Hernandez-Lazo.
6
 Id. at 70.
7
 Id. at 71.
8
 Rollo, p. 13.
9
 Id.
10
 Id. at 13-14.
11
 CA rollo, p. 113.
12
 Id.
13
 Id. at 72.
14
 Rollo, p. 14.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_229179_2022.html 13/17
5/24/23, 8:53 AM G.R. No. 229179
15
 CA rollo, pp. 114-115.
16
 Id.
17
 Rollo, pp. 14-15.
18
 CA rollo, p. 116.
19
 Id. at 119.
20
 Id.
21
 Id. at 120.
22
 Rollo, p. 15.
23
 CA rollo, pp. 75-76.
24
 Id. at 77.
25
 Id. at 55.
26
 Id. at 81.
27
 Id.
28
 Id. at 121.
29
 Id.
30
 Id. at 83.
31
 Id. at 84-86.
32
 Id. at 87.
33
 Id.
34
 Rollo, pp. 15-16.
35
 CA rollo, p. 88.
36
 Id. at 89.
37
 Rollo, p. 16.
38
 CA rollo, pp. 50-51.
40
 Rollo, p. 16.
40
 CA rollo, pp. 146-147.
41
 Id.
42
 Id. at 143.
43
 Id. at 144-146.
44
 Id. at 45.
45
 Id. at 41.
46
 Id.
47
 Id. at 84-86.
48
 Id. at 41.
49
 Id. at 43.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_229179_2022.html 14/17
5/24/23, 8:53 AM G.R. No. 229179
50
 Id. at 44.
51
 Id. at 47-48.
52
 Rollo, p. 33.
53
 Id. at 28.
54
 CA rollo, p. 73.
55
 Rollo, pp. 31-32.
56
 Id. at 32.
57
 Id. at 53.
58
 Id. at 54.
59
 Id.
60
 Id. at 57.
61
 Id. at 63-64.
62
 Id. at 84.
63
 Id. at 89.
64
 Id.
65
 Id. at 254-285.
66
 Id. at 260-264.
67
 Id. at 271-272.
68
 Id. at 272; 275.
69
 Id. at 305-319.
70
 Id. at 306.
71
 Id. at 307.
72
 Gamboa v. Maunlad Trans, Inc., 839 Phil. 153, 166 (2018).
73
 Esquivel v. Atty. Reyes, 457 Phil. 509, 516-517 (2003).
74
 Calera v. Hoegh Fleet Services Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 250584, June 14, 2021.
75
 Id.
76
 765 Phil. 341 (2015).
77
 Id. at 362-363.
78
  Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara, 832 Phil. 380, 396 (2018), citing  Talaroc v. Arpaphil Shipping
Corporation, 817 Phil. 598, 611-612 (2017).
79
 Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., 588 Phil. 895, 912 (2008).
80
 CA rollo, pp. 75-78.
81
 Id. at 78.
82
 Id.
83
 Id. at 81.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_229179_2022.html 15/17
5/24/23, 8:53 AM G.R. No. 229179
84
 Id.
85
 Id. at 121.
86
 Id.
87
 Id. at 83.
88
 G.R. No. 241674, June 10, 2020.
89
 Id.
90
 Id.
91
 INC Navigation Co. Philippines, Inc. v. Rosales, 744 Phil. 774, 787 (2014).
92
 Rollo, p. 89.
93
 Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC.
94
 758 Phil. 166 (2015).
95
 Id. at 189-190, citing INC Navigation Co. Philippines, Inc. v. Rosales, supra note 91 at 788.
96
 CA rollo, p. 84.
97
 G.R. No. 226385, August 19, 2019, 914 SCRA 413.
98
 Id. at 422-424.
99
 CA rollo, p. 87.
100
 Id. at 88.
101
 770 Phil. 677 (2015).
102
 Id. at 691.
103
 G.R. No. 207511, October 5, 2020.
104
 Id.
105
 G.R. No. 209907, June 23, 2021.
106
 Id.; citing Hernandez v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, 824 Phil 552, 560-561 (2018).
107
 Id.; citing Multinational Ship Management, Inc. v. Briones, G.R. No. 239793, January 27, 2020, 930 SCRA
179, 192.
108
 Id.; citing Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. v. Solacito, G.R. No. 217431, February 19, 2020.
109
 G.R. No. 244423, November 4, 2020.
110
 Id.
111
 Id.
112
 CA rollo, p. 121.
113
 Id.
114
 Id. at 81.
115
 Id. at 83.
116
 Id. at 86.
117
 Id. at 90.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_229179_2022.html 16/17
5/24/23, 8:53 AM G.R. No. 229179
118
  Magadia v. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 246497, December 5, 2019, 927 SCRA
356, 366.
119
 716 Phil. 267 (2013).
120
 Id. at 282-283.
121
 Ventis Maritime Corporation v. Cayabyab, G.R. No. 239257, June 21, 2021.
122
  See  Jerzon Manpower and Trading, Inc. v. Nato, G.R. No. 230211, October 6, 2021;  Teodoro v. Teekay
Shipping Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 244721, February 5, 2020, 931 SCRA 425, 442;  Pelagio v. Philippine
Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 231773, March 11, 2019, 895 SCRA 546, 558-559, citing  Nacar v.
Gallery Frames, supra note 119.
123
 Ventis Maritime Corporation v. Cayabyab, supra.
124
 C.F. Sharp & Co., Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 431 Phil. 11, 20 (2002).

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_229179_2022.html 17/17