Gutierrez v. Bright Maritime Corp.
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in April 11, 2018. The case is Manuel B. Gutierrez vs. Bright Maritime Corporation, Evalend Shipping Company SA and/or Desiree P. Sellar. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. The legal issue in this case is the non-compliance of the seafarer's obligation to have the conflicting assessments of his disability referred to a third doctor for a binding opinion, which militates against his claim for permanent disability benefits. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's failure to comply with the procedure mandated under the POEA-SEC (Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract) resulted in the fit-to-work assessment of the company-designated physician, and the Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error in upholding the same.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233665. April 11, 2018.]
MANUEL B. GUTIERREZ, petitioner, vs.BRIGHT MARITIME CORPORATION, EVALEND SHIPPING COMPANY SA AND/OR DESIREE P. SELLAR, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11 April 2018which reads as follows: CTIEac
"G.R. No. 233665 — Manuel B. Gutierrez versus Bright Maritime Corporation, Evalend Shipping Company SA and/or Desiree P. Sellar
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, including the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated March 28, 2017 and Resolution dated August 17, 2017 2 in CA-G.R. SP No. 148648, the Court RESOLVES to DENY the instant Petition and AFFIRM the March 28, 2017 Decision and August 17, 2017 Resolution of the CA.
In the case of Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. v. Dumadag, 3 the Court held that a seafarer's non-compliance with the procedure under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) militates against his claim for permanent disability benefits. The Court explained:
The filing of the complaint constituted a breach of Dumadag's contractual obligation to have the conflicting assessments of his disability referred to a third doctor for a binding opinion. The petitioners could not have possibly caused the non-referral to a third doctor because they were not aware that Dumadag secured separate independent opinions regarding his disability. Thus, the complaint should have been dismissed, for without a binding third opinion, the fit-to-work certification of the company-designated physician stands, pursuant to the POEA-SEC and the CBA. As it turned out, however, the LA and the NLRC relied on the assessments of Dumadag's physicians that he was unfit for sea duty, and awarded him permanent total disability benefits. 4 (Emphasis supplied)
In view of petitioner's failure to comply with the procedure mandated under the POEA-SEC, the CA did not commit any reversible error when it upheld the fit-to-work assessment of the company-designated physician.
SO ORDERED. REYES, JR., J., on wellness leave."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 28-37. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. concurring.
2.Id. at 38-39.
3. 712 Phil. 507 (2013).
4.Id. at 521.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU