FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 210461. January 21, 2019.]
C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC./NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE, ET AL., petitioners,vs. RODRIGO J. MALLARE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 21, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 210461 (C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC./NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE, ET AL., Petitioners, v. RODRIGO J. MALLARE, Respondent) — After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and to AFFIRM the August 12, 2013 Decision 1 and November 27, 2013 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 129868, whereby the CA reversed and set aside the Decision 3 dated December 28, 2012 by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and awarded permanent and total disability benefits in favor of herein respondent.
The petitioners maintain that the CA erred in disregarding the fit-to-work clearance issued by their designated doctor and the several medical reports that provided details on the respondent's progress until his recovery. They also insist that the decision not to re-employ the respondent was based on their prerogative to hire qualified and competent employees for the job. Finally, they argue that the CA award of Grade 1 disability benefits in favor of the respondent is baseless and contrary to the POEA contract. 4
We disagree.
Firstly, the issue regarding the compensability of the respondent's disease is essentially a factual one. The Court accords respect to the factual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies in deference to their specialization to rule on matters falling within their jurisdiction especially when their findings are supported by substantial evidence. 5
In here, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA had uniformly found the respondent as entitled to disability benefits despite the fit-to-work certification issued by the petitioners' designated physician. We see no reason to doubt their pronouncement considering that their findings are supported by the evidence on record.
Secondly, the Court is not unaware that the primary responsibility to determine the disability grading or fitness to work of seafarers rests on the company-designated physician. To be conclusive, however, the medical assessments issued by the designated doctor must be complete and definitive of the proper disability benefits to be awarded to the seafarer. As such, we may disregard the findings of company-designated physicians for being incomplete, doubtful, clearly biased in favor of the employer, or for lack of finality. 6 Thus, in Grace Marine Shipping Corporation v. Alarcon, 7 we declared the fit-to-work certification of the company-designated physician as a nullity upon the finding that the employee's illness has not been cured and that he continued to suffer from recurrent lesions.
In here, we have serious doubts on whether the certification issued by the petitioners' designated doctor truly reflected the respondent's actual medical condition. Notable that after certifying the respondent with a clean bill of health, the petitioners decided to no longer rehire him. We therefore agree with the keen observation made by the CA on the matter, viz.:
In the case at bench, petitioner was diagnosed to be suffering from "Dilated Left Ventricle with Preserved Systolic Function; Mitral Dilation; Dilated Right Ventricle with Preserved Systolic Function; Mitral Sclerosis with Mild Mitral Regurgitation; Aortic Sclerosis with Mild Aortic Regurgitation; Physiologic Tricuspid Regurgitation." After a series of examinations and treatments, the company-designated physician declared petitioner fit to return to work. Despite the said declaration, petitioner, however, continues to experience chest pain and gets tired easily prompting him to see other physicians, who, after attending to medical needs of petitioner, separately issued a certification that he is permanently unfit for sea-duties in any capacity.
xxx xxx xxx
In consonance with the foregoing, We have examined the medical certificates issued by petitioner's physicians of choice in the light (sic) of the circumstances surrounding the case at bench and We are of the view that the findings of petitioner's physicians of choice should prevail over that of the company-designated physician. It is noted that petitioner had been in the employ of private respondents since 1999 until his last contract in 2010, a fact not disputed by the latter. He was issued a clean bill of health on March 21, 2011, yet on April 8, 2011, petitioner received a letter from the Vice-President of the foreign principal that after careful consideration, the company cannot offer him re-employment. Petitioner was repatriated for medical reasons. The refusal to employ him must have something to do with his health. And the fact that the company do (sic) not wish to re-employ an employee who had worked for them for over ten years leads to an ineluctable conclusion that private respondents found petitioner to be unfit for sea-duties. Consequently, We concur with the findings of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that petitioner's disability is compensable. 8
Finally, the petitioners find the award of permanent and total disability benefits to be baseless. We hold the contrary based on our pronouncement in Grace Marine Shipping Corporation v. Alarcon9 that —
An employee's disability becomes permanent and total when so declared by the company-designated physician, or, in case of absence of such a declaration either of fitness or permanent total disability, upon the lapse of the 120 or 240-day treatment period under Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code and Rule X, Section 2 of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation Commission, while the employee's disability continues and he is unable to engage in gainful employment during such period, and the company-designated physician fails to arrive at a definite assessment of the employee's fitness or disability. This is true regardless of whether the employee loses the use of any part of his body or if the injury or disability is classified as Grade 1 under the POEA-SEC. 10
With the nullity of the certification issued by the petitioners' designated physician, the respondent's disability had become permanent and total there being no declaration of fitness or permanent total disability after the 240-day period had expired. Also, the certification issued by the respondent's chosen doctor that he is "permanently unfit for sea duties in any capacity" 11 coupled with the petitioners' unjustified decision not to re-employ the respondent, further support the permanence of the respondent's disability. As such, we see no reason to disturb the findings of the CA and hereby affirm the award of permanent and total disability in favor of the respondent.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the present petition; AFFIRMS the August 12, 2013 decision and November 27, 2013 resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 129868 entitled "Rodrigo J Mallare, petitioner, v. National Labor Relations Commission (Fifth Division), CF Sharp Crew Management, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, and Jose P. Rocha, respondents"; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-23; penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Associate Justice Melchor Q.C. Sadang.
2.Id. at 72-73.
3.Id. at 74-85.
4.Id. at 39-46.
5.Magat v. Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 232892, April 4, 2018.
6.Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara, G.R. No. 204307, June 6, 2018.
7. G.R. No. 201536, September 9, 2015, 770 SCRA 259.
8.Rollo, pp. 64-65.
9. G.R. No. 201536, September 9, 2015, 770 SCRA 259.
10.Id. at 283-284.
11.Rollo, p. 109.