Cruz, Jr. v. PAL Maritime Corp.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 257945. June 22, 2022.]

ANTONIO H. CRUZ, JR., petitioner, vs. PAL MARITIME CORPORATION/OCEAN GERMANY GMBH/SONRISA N. DAVID, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 22, 2022, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 257945 (Antonio H. Cruz, Jr. v. PAL Maritime Corporation/Ocean Germany GMBH/Sonrisa N. David). — After a careful review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Antonio H. Cruz, Jr. (petitioner), and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Resolutions dated March 18, 2021 1 and November 3, 2021 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 163786. Petitioner failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed reversible error in finding that he is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.

A seafarer's entitlement to disability benefits for work-related illness or injury is governed by the Labor Code, its implementing rules and regulations, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), and prevailing case law. 3

In this regard, Section 20 (A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC provides that the company-designated physician has an obligation to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness or degree of disability within a period of 120 days from repatriation. 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.

In Bitco v. Crossworld Marine Services, Inc., 4 the Court held that it is a settled rule that referral to a third doctor is mandatory, and the seafarer's failure to abide thereby is a breach of the POEA-SEC which makes the assessment of the company-designated physician final and binding.

Here, it is undisputed that the medical assessments of the company-designated physician and the personal doctors of petitioner were conflicting, yet petitioner did not ask respondents PAL Maritime Corporation/Ocean Germany GMBH/Sonrisa N. David for a referral to a third doctor. In the recent case of Reyes v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc., 5 the Court reiterated that the initiative for referral to a third doctor should come from the employee. He/she must actively or expressly request for it. His/her request or notification triggers the company's burden of initiating the process of referral to a third doctor commonly agreed upon between the parties.

Conversely, petitioner argues that the third doctor rule does not apply when, as in this case, the company-designated physician failed to issue a final, definitive, and complete assessment within the 120/240-day period. 6 The Court is not convinced.

The records show that the company-designated physician issued a final report on February 19, 2018 or 118 days from the time that petitioner was medically repatriated on October 24, 2017. The company-designated physician declared petitioner fit to resume sea duties with medications. He stated that the results of petitioner's laboratory examinations were already at an acceptable level. Petitioner's Coronary Artery Disease, Single Vessel, Hypertension, and Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 were controlled; while his Cerebro Vascular Disease, Right Basal Ganglia was stable. The medical assessment of the company-designated physician is valid, final, and definitive as it clearly indicates the seafarer's medical condition. 7

More importantly, the company-designated physician noted in his final report that petitioner claims that "he was asymptomatic for the past four (4) weeks and is willing to go back to his previous job assignment." 8 Petitioner did not deny that he made this claim to the company-designated physician. He also did not refute that he sent a text message 9 to the company asserting that he is feeling medically and mentally fit and asking for employment.

In fine, considering that petitioner breached the POEA-SEC, the findings of the company-designated physician should prevail. It is also the company-designated physician who monitored, examined, and treated petitioner for several months, compared to petitioner's doctors who only saw him once.

Meanwhile, conformably with Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 10 the assailed Decision of the CA must be modified in that the financial assistance due to petitioner in the amount of US$4,000.00 or its Philippine Peso equivalent at the time of payment shall be subject to legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. The Resolutions dated March 18, 2021 and November 3, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 163786 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the financial assistance due to petitioner in the amount of US$4,000.00 or its Philippine Peso equivalent at the time of payment shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 96-105; penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr, with Associate Justices Pablito A. Perez and Raymond Reynold R. Lawigan concurring.

2.Id. at 59-60.

3.Pastrana v. Bahia Shipping Services, G.R. No. 227419, June 10, 2020.

4. G.R. No. 239190, February 10, 2021.

5. G.R. No. 230502, February 15, 2022.

6.Id. at 41.

7.Id. at 219-220.

8.Id. at 221.

9.Id. at 371.

10. 716 Phil. 267 (2013).