FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236622. June 23, 2021.]
CESAR A. CRUZ, petitioner,vs. CENTENNIAL TRANSMARINE, INC. and/or MIDEAST SHIPMANAGEMENT LIMITED, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 23, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236622 (Cesar A. Cruz v. Centennial Transmarine, Inc. and/or Mideast Shipmanagement Limited).
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the present petition for review on certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure of Cesar A. Cruz (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in rendering its September 20, 2017 Decision 1 and January 11, 2018 Resolution 2 in CA-G.R. SP No. 150510.
Indeed, the mere lapse of 120 days does not automatically render the disability of the seafarer as permanent and total. It is settled that the company-designated physician is required to issue a final and definitive disability assessment within 120 or 240 days from the date of the seafarer's repatriation. 3 The period of treatment may only be extended to 240 days if a sufficient justification exists such as when further medical treatment is required or when the seafarer is uncooperative. 4
Here, respondent's company physician issued a 5th Medical Progress Report 5 on May 19, 2016, or 110 days after petitioner's repatriation. In said report, petitioner was advised to take medications and was scheduled for re-evaluation by the gastroenterologist on June 16, 2016. At that time, petitioner was recorded to still have been experiencing "left lower quadrant pain, intermittent graded as 5/10, accompanied by fever, nausea and decreased stool caliber." Indubitably, these circumstances indicate that petitioner still required further medical treatment, thereby justifying the extension to 240 days. Notably, respondent's designated physician, Dr. Susannah Ong-Salvador, declared petitioner "fit to resume sea duties" thru a Final Medical Report 6 issued July 16, 2016, or 168 days after petitioner's repatriation. Hence, petitioner's final medical assessment was issued within the 240-day period.
As regards the rule on referral to a third doctor, We find the same inapplicable in this case. The Court notes that the Letter 7 dated July 25, 2016, sent by petitioner's counsel to respondent, did not disclose: (1) that he sought a second opinion, and (2) the contrary medical findings of petitioner's doctor. For the rule on referral to a third doctor to apply, the seafarer must notify the company of his intention to resolve the conflicting assessment by duly and fully disclosing contrary assessment from the seafarer's own doctor, thus:
At that point in time, the parties were yet before the Labor Arbiter, who could have facilitated the election of the third doctor. We would like to remind ship owners, manning companies and seafarers of their respective obligations as regards the third doctor provision. In INC Shipmanagement, Incorporated v. Rosales, we held:
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. In Bahia, we said:
In the absence of any request from him (as shown by the records of the case), the employer-company cannot be expected to respond. As the party seeking to impugn the certification that the law itself recognizes as prevailing, Constantino bears the burden of positive action to prove that his doctor's findings are correct, as well as the burden to notify the company that a contrary finding had been made by his own physician. Upon such notification, the company must itself respond by setting into motion the process of choosing a third doctor who, as the POEA-SEC provides, can rule with finality on the disputed medical situation. 8 ( emphasis supplied)
Thus, respondent cannot be faulted for sending the Letter 9 on August 22, 2016, rejecting petitioner's request for referral because petitioner did not submit a copy of the medical report of his own doctor contradicting the findings of the company-designated physician. 10 Accordingly, petitioner cannot rightfully demand referral to a third doctor.
Consequently, the assessment made by the company-designated physician shall prevail. This Court notes that petitioner's physician of choice, Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, examined him only once and afterwards issued an assessment of his unfitness. On the other hand, respondent's designated doctor had thoroughly examined and treated petitioner from February 3, 2016 up to the time he was subsequently declared fit to resume sea duties on July 16, 2016. 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 a private physician done in one day on the basis of an examination or existing medical records. 11
In sum, the CA correctly denied petitioner's claim for disability on the basis of the medical clearance issued by respondent's doctor declaring him fit to resume his duties.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 20, 2017 Decision and January 11, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 150510 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 404-419; penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Maria Filomena D. Singh, concurring.
2.Id. at 420-421.
3.Pastrana v. Bahia Shipping Services, G.R. No. 227419, June 10, 2020.
4.Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency v. Israel, G.R. No. 200258, October 3, 2018, 881 SCRA 430, 446-447; citing Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr., 765 Phil. 341, 362-363 (2015); Career Philippines Ship Management, Inc. v. Acub, 809 Phil. 881, 896 (2017).
5.Rollo, p. 297.
6.Id. at 305-306.
7.Id. at 136.
8.Carcedo v. Maine Marine Philippines, Inc., 758 Phil. 166, 189-190 (2015), citing INC Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Rosales, 744 Phil. 774, 788 (2014).
9.Rollo, p. 138; Telefacsimile transmission.
10.Id.
11.Abosta Shipmanagement Corporation v. Delos Reyes, 833 Phil. 760, 770 (2018); INC Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Rosales, supra at 789.0.