THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235754. February 7, 2018.]
TEOTIMO L. AGUSTIN, JR., petitioner,vs. MMSPHIL MARITIME SERVICES, INC. AND MMS CO. LTD., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 7, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235754 (Teotimo L. Agustin, Jr. vs. MMSPHIL Maritime Services, Inc. and MMS Co. Ltd.). — This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the Decision 1 dated 31 May 2017 and Resolution 2 dated 16 November 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 148033.
The facts are as follows:
Petitioner Teotimo L. Agustin, Jr. is a seafarer. In October of 2014, petitioner was hired by respondent MMSPHIL Maritime Services, Inc. (MMSI), on behalf of its foreign principal respondent MMS Co. Ltd., (MCL), as an oiler on board the vessel M/T Esteem Splendour for a term of nine (9) months. His employment with MMSI and MCL is covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
While at sea sometime in March 2015, however, petitioner experienced weakness, difficulty in breathing, nosebleeds, post-prandial vomiting and loose bowel movement. Thus, on 30 March 2015, while the M/T Esteem Splendour was docked at Portugal, petitioner was referred to a local Portuguese hospital 3 for evaluation. In the hospital, petitioner was diagnosed to be suffering from Gastritis and was given medication. Petitioner was soon after recommended for medical repatriation.
Petitioner arrived in the Philippines on 8 April 2015. Two (2) days thereafter, petitioner was examined by one Dr. Nicomedes Cruz (Dr. Cruz) — the designated physician of MMSI and MCL. Petitioner underwent two esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD) and a biopsy. Through such procedures, petitioner was diagnosed with Gastric Ulcer Forrest III and Mild Chronic Gastritis. He was then given corresponding treatment.
At the conclusion of petitioner's treatment, or on 1 September 2015, Dr. Cruz issued a Final Medical Report certifying that petitioner is already "FIT TO RESUME SEA DUTIES."
On 9 September 2015, petitioner initiated mediation proceedings before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) to help him collect disability benefits from MMSI and MCL. Such proceedings, however, were terminated after petitioner, MMSI and MCL failed to reach any amicable settlement.
On 21 September 2015, petitioner decided to undergo another EGD, this time, under the auspices of a certain Dr. Gerardo Pedragosa (Dr. Pedragosa). After the EGD, Dr. Pedragosa diagnosed petitioner to be suffering from Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) and Mild Chronic Gastritis.
Then, on 16 November 2015, petitioner had himself examined by yet another physician — a certain Dr. Donald Miranda (Dr. Miranda). Dr. Miranda issued a Medical Certificate diagnosing petitioner with GERD and advising the latter to "REST WHILE ON MEDICATION FOR A PERIOD OF 2-3 MONTHS" and to "AVOID ABDOMINAL STRAINING, LIFTING HEAVY OBJECTS."
On 7 December 2015, petitioner requested MMSI for the referral of his case to a neutral doctor jointly appointed by them. This request, however, was left unanswered. CAIHTE
On 8 January 2016, petitioner initiated an arbitration case against MMSI and MCL before the NCMB. In it, petitioner sought payment from MMSI and MCL for permanent total disability benefits under Articles 28.1 of their CBA 4 in relation to the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney's fees. The case was referred to a Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA) and was docketed as RCMB-NCR-MNL-NTA-01-0006-2016.
Petitioner hinged his entitlement to permanent disability benefits on his subsisting GERD and Minor Chronic Gastritis. Petitioner claimed that such diseases had rendered him permanently disabled as they required him — as attested to by the recommendation of Dr. Miranda — to undergo further treatment and rest for 2-3 months after November 2015, which is already more than 240 days after he was repatriated and first treated.
Petitioner also averred that his permanent disability is compensable under Article 28.1 of their CBA, as the same was caused by an "accident" while on board the M/T Esteem Splendour. According to petitioner, his GERD and Minor Chronic Gastritis can be traced back to that one day in March 2015 when, while cleaning the vessel's turbocharger, his blower suddenly malfunctioned and spewed harmful chemicals he was able to inhale.
MMSI and MCL, for their part, contested petitioner's claim that n he is suffering from a permanent disability. They invoked, for such purpose, the Final Medical Report of Dr. Cruz which clearly certified that, as of 1 September 2015 or the 144th day of treatment, petitioner was already fit to resume his sea duties. MMSI and MCL insisted that it is the certification of Dr. Cruz that ought to prevail, the latter being their designated physician.
At any rate, MMSI and MCL also disputed petitioner's averment that he is entitled to recover disability benefits from the CBA. MMSI and MCL noted that petitioner was not able to present any concrete evidence that the March 2015 blower accident ever transpired and that, even if it did, there is also no evidence that petitioner contracted GERD and Mild Chronic Gastritis as a result thereof.
On 28 July 2016, the PVA issued a decision granting petitioner's claim for permanent total disability benefits under the CBA and attorney's fees. Accordingly, the PVA awarded petitioner the sum of $96,909.00 as disability benefits plus 10% attorney's fees. The PVA, however, denied petitioner's claims for moral and exemplary damages.
After an unsuccessful motion for reconsideration, MMSI and MLC elevated the PVA decision before the CA via a petition for certiorari.
On 31 May 2017, the CA rendered a decision setting aside the PVA decision. Relying on the Final Medical Report of Dr. Cruz, the CA held that petitioner was not suffering from any permanent total disability and, as such, is not entitled to receive the corresponding benefits therefor either under the CBA or under the POEA-SEC. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the CA remained steadfast.
Hence, this petition. Petitioner raises the following issues:
1. Petitioner first questions the finding that he is not suffering from any permanent disability. He contends that the CA erred when it relied on the Final Medical Report of Dr. Cruz instead of the subsequent diagnoses and recommendations of Drs. Pedragosa and Miranda. According to petitioner, the Final Medical Report of Dr. Cruz is not deserving of credence as its findings are marred by "serious doubts." In particular, petitioner notes:
a. The certification in the Final Medical Report that he is "FIT TO RESUME SEA DUTIES. . ." as of 1 September 2015 is not based on any recent EGD or biopsy. The last time that he underwent EGD and biopsy was on 27 July 2015 and 3 August 2015, respectively, when he was diagnosed with Gastric Ulcer Forrest III and Mild Chronic Gastritis. Without another EGD or biopsy showing that he is now clear of such diseases, Dr. Cruz could not have possibly certified that he is already and fit for sea duties.
b. Dr. Cruz's specialty is surgery, whereas Dr. Miranda's is internal medicine. Hence, Dr. Miranda's assessment as to gastric conditions and illnesses deserves more weight than Dr. Cruz's.
2. Petitioner also insists that his permanent disability is compensable under Article 28.1 of their CBA, the same having been caused by an "accident" while on board the M/T Esteem Splendour. Petitioner maintains that his GERD and Minor Chronic Gastritis was the result of an incident in March 2005 involving a blower malfunction.
Our Ruling
We deny the petition.
The Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in reversing the PVA. Petitioner is not entitled to recover permanent total disability benefits, either under the CBA or the POEA-SEC, as he is not suffering from a permanent total disability.
First. The CA did not err when it relied on the Final Medical Report of Dr. Cruz, the designated physician of MMSI and MCL. The report deserves to be given more weight over the subsequent diagnoses and recommendations of Drs. Pedragosa and Miranda, in light of the circumstances under which such finding, diagnoses and recommendations were made. As aptly observed by the CA: 5
We recognize [petitioner's] right to disagree with the assessment of the company-designated physician and to seek the opinion of a private physician of his own choice. However, in the case at bench, We find that [petitioner] failed to seasonably controvert the Medical Report dated September 1, 2015 issued by the company-designated physician that he is fit to work.
It is worthy to stress that [petitioner] relied heavily on the recommendation made by his second private doctor, Dr. Miranda, on November 16, 2015, or two (2) months after he was declared fit to work, that he should undergo medication up to three (3) more months. The request for a third doctor happened only on December 7, 2015 or three (3) months after the [petitioner] was declared fit to resume his duties. Evidently, it took four (4) months before [petitioner] disputed the findings of the company-designated physician by filing the complaint for disability benefits on January 8, 2016 before the [PVA]. Worse, in the complaint, [petitioner] averred that his illness had been under treatment for at least eleven (11) months or allegedly way beyond the prescribed 240-day treatment period. Yet, [petitioner] did not secure from his private physicians, who attended and administered his medication, a certification that would contradict that of the company-designated physician's medical report that he is already fit to work.
In view of the foregoing, the company-designated physician's declaration that [petitioner] is fit to work should prevail considering that it was made almost after five (5) months of closely monitoring his medical condition and progress and after a careful analysis of the results of the diagnostic tests and procedures administered to him. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Second. Contrary to the submission of petitioner, the credibility of the Final Medical Report of Dr. Cruz is not compromised either by the fact that no EGD or biopsy was done immediately prior to its issuance or by the fact that Dr. Cruz specializes merely on surgery. We substantiate:
1. The certification in the Final Medical Report that petitioner is "FIT TO RESUME SEA DUTIES. . ." is justified even though there had been no EGD or biopsy that was conducted showing that petitioner is completely free of any illnesses. A finding of fitness to resume sea duties does not warrant the seafarer's absolute and complete freedom from of any illness or disease but only such condition as would allow him to perform all acts necessary to resume his profession "without any serious discomfort or pain and without material injury or danger to life."6 Here, the records are clear that the Dr. Cruz's assessment of the condition of petitioner had been the result of almost five (5) months of close, regular and continuous monitoring and treatment of petitioner. To our mind, this is enough basis upon which to conclude the fitness of petitioner.
2. The fact that Dr. Cruz is a surgeon, as opposed to being an internist, is also not a sufficient reason to disregard his Final Medical Report. To begin with, the POEA-SEC does not require that the fitness or disability of a seafarer be assessed by a specialist physician. As taught by Sarocam v. Interorient Maritime, Ent. Inc.: 7
The only requirement stated in the POEA Standard Employment Contract, as explained in the German Marine case, is that the doctor be company-designated, and no other. Though it is prudent and advisable to have a doctor specialized in his field to examine the seafarer's condition or degree of illness, the contractual provisions of the parties only require that the doctor be "company-designated." When the language of the contract is explicit, as in the case at bar, leaving no doubt as to the intention of the drafters thereof, the courts may not read into it any other intention that would contradict its plain import.
At any rate, considering the established facts, we still find that Dr. Cruz was better situated than Drs. Pedragosa and Miranda to assess the fitness of petitioner. Dr. Cruz, being the designated physician of MMSI and MCL, was the doctor who examined and treated petitioner from the time he was repatriated up to his recovery and subsequent assessment as fit for duty on 1 September 2015. The extensive medical attention extended by Dr. Cruz for a period of five (5) months enabled the latter to acquire familiarity, if not detailed knowledge, of petitioner's medical condition. No doubt such knowledge enabled Dr. Cruz to arrive at a much more accurate appraisal of petitioner's condition, as compared to Dr. Miranda who was not privy to petitioner's case from the very beginning.
Third. Given the finding that petitioner is not suffering from any permanent total disability, we no longer see any value in addressing the issue anent the applicability of Article 28.1 of the CBA to the present case. Regardless of whether the illnesses of petitioner was caused by an "accident" or not, petitioner will still not be entitled to recover permanent total disability benefits, either under the CBA or the POEA-SEC, as he is not suffering from any such disability. DETACa
There being no reason to depart from the ruling of the CA on any matter, we resolve to affirm.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 31 May 2017 and Resolution dated 16 November 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 148033 are AFFIRMED. (Martires, J., on leave)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 46-61. The decision was penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting for the Fourteenth (14th) Division of the CA with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Leoncia R. Dimagiba concurring.
2.Id. at 63-64.
3. Hospital de Santiago in Sentubal, Portugal.
4. Article 28: Disability
28.1 A seafarer who suffers permanent disability as a result of an accident whilst in the employment of the Company regardless of fault, including accidents occurring while travelling to or from the ship, and whose ability to work as a seafarer is reduced as a result thereof, but excluding permanent disability die to willful acts, shall in addition to sick pay, be entitled to compensation according to the provisions of this Agreement.
5.Rollo, pp. 57-58.
6.Seagull Maritime Corporation v. Dee, G.R. No. 165156, 2 April 2007.
7. G.R. No. 167813, 27 June 2006.
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "the" in the original document.