SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256088. September 15, 2021.]
STARBULK ABOITIZ JEBSEN CREW MANAGEMENT/STARBULK SA/WILLARD P. MASNAYON, petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS AND ROLLY C. HIJARA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 256088(Starbulk Aboitiz Jebsen Crew Management/Starbulk SA/Willard P. Masnayon v. Court of Appeals and Rolly C. Hijara). — Absent a final assessment from the company-designated physician, the seafarer had nothing to contest and the law steps in to conclusively characterize his disability as total and permanent. 1
Filed before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 2 assailing the June 9, 2020 Decision 3 and February 11, 2021 Resolution 4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 153911. The assailed Decision denied the Petition for Certiorari filed by Starbulk Aboitiz Jebsen Crew Management/Starbulk SA/Willard P. Masnayon (petitioners) and affirmed in toto the August 31, 2017 Decision 5 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. (OFW-M) 08-000490-17(4), 6 which awarded respondent Rolly C. Hijara (Hijara) total and permanent disability benefits plus attorney's fees. The challenged Resolution, on the one hand, denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. 7
We deny the petition.
The findings of the labor tribunals and the CA as to the work-relatedness of respondent Hijara's injury and resulting disability are supported by substantial evidence and will no longer be disturbed by this Court. The crux of the present appeal delves on whether the CA correctly affirmed the award of permanent and total disability benefits to Hijara.
A review of the records of the case would not result in the reversal of the challenged CA Decision and Resolution.
By way of background, Hijara filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits, medical expenses, damages, and attorney's fees against petitioners before the NLRC. 8 Ruling in favor of petitioners, the Labor Arbiter (LA) found that the company physician issued a final disability assessment of Grade 11 within the 240-day period allowed by law and jurisprudence. 9 Hence, the LA dismissed Hijara's claims for total and permanent disability benefits but declared him entitled to disability compensation corresponding to Grade 11 in the amount of US$7,465.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment. 10
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Decision of the LA and ruled that Hijara is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The NLRC disregarded the disability assessment issued by the company physician because of petitioners' failure to accede to Hijara's written request for referral to a third doctor. The NLRC gave more evidentiary weight to the opinion of Hijara's private doctors, viz.:
Between the two medical findings, viz., that of the company designated physician and that of [Hijara's] two personal physicians, this Office resolves to harmonize the same in that while [petitioners'] doctor have assessed [Hijara] with a Grade 11 disability only, such disability has taken on the nature of permanency in terms of being unable to resume his tasks as Bosun, hence, the accuracy of [Hijara's] own doctor's (sic) findings that he is already permanently disabled (per Dr. Manuel Magtira) and unfit to work as a seaman in any capacity (per Dr. Misael Ticman). It is noted that [Hijara's] doctors are both expert orthopaedic (sic) surgeons and who, We hasten to add, did not simply rely on a one-time physical examination but also conducted diagnostic tests (MRI) of [Hijara's] lumbo-sacral spine. 11
Petitioners moved for reconsideration but to no avail. 12 They then elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Meanwhile, Hijara filed a motion for execution before the LA, which was subsequently granted. Petitioners then made payment by tendering, to the NLRC sheriff, bank checks representing the judgment award, without prejudice however to the outcome of the petition filed with the CA. 13 caITAC
The CA, through the assailed Decision, sustained the findings of the NLRC and further held:
The burden of resorting to a third opinion was shifted to the petitioners after the request had been duly lodged with it. However, nowhere in the records would show that petitioners acted on the letter request of [Hijara] despite due notice. In view of petitioners' non-compliance with the prescribed procedure, it [sic] had lost its leverage over the findings of the self-appointed physicians. The findings of physicians from both parties should therefore be evaluated based on the merits. 14
In affirming the NLRC Decision, the CA ultimately ruled:
x x x [T]he following tasks require physical effort from a bosun: 1) performing regular check-up on the vessel and maintaining some areas of the ship not maintained by engineering department; 2) maintaining the hull of the vessel and executing a formal preventive maintenance program; and 3) operating basic function of the windlass which included letting go and heaving up an anchor.
The job requires a person possessing full physical capability considering the rigidity and the strenuous nature of the tasks. [Hijara], with 1/3 loss of lifting power of the trunk, is undoubtedly incapable of fulfilling this demand. While the company-designated physician's assessment was only grade 11 disability, it entails total and permanent disability as [Hijara] could no longer perform his duties as a bosun. The findings of the self-appointed physicians, which were based not only on [Hijara's] medical history but also on their own examinations, should therefore prevail. In disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one's earning capacity. 15
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA, 16 hence, they are now before this Court via this Rule 45 petition.
In gist, petitioners insist that the CA erred in upholding the NLRC Decision granting permanent total disability benefits to Hijara. They assert that Hijara failed to timely furnish them with a copy of the purported medical findings of his private doctors. Without said medical findings disputing the final assessment issued by the company-designated physician, petitioners cannot be obliged to resort to the third doctor referral procedure under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Standard Employment Contract (SEC). Also, Hijara was under the care and treatment of the company-designated physician for 233 days and was given the maximum medical care that he can receive. In contrast, Hijara's private doctors examined him only in a single day. They have limited knowledge of his medical history and their findings are without adequate basis. Thus, the NLRC and the CA should have given more weight to the final disability grading issued by the company-designated physician. Petitioners stress that under the POEA-SEC, disability is based solely on the disability gradings provided under Section 32 thereof and is not measured or determined by the number of days a seafarer was under treatment or paid a sickness allowance. In sum, petitioners assert that the failure to resort to the third doctor referral procedure under the POEA-SEC was due to Hijara's fault. Consequently, the disability grading issued by the company-designated physician must prevail in the determination of Hijara's disability benefits. 17
We affirm the CA, albeit on different reasons.
The employment of seafarers is governed by the contracts they signed at the time of their engagement. So long as the stipulations in these contracts are not contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy, they have the force of law as between the parties. While the seafarer and his employer are governed by their mutual agreement, the POEA Rules and Regulations require that the POEA-SEC be integrated in every seafarer's contract. 18
Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 POEA SEC provides:
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS. —
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
3. In addition to the above obligation of the employer to provide medical attention, the seafarer shall also receive sickness allowance from his employer in an amount equivalent to his basic wage computed from the time he signed off until he is declared fit to work or the degree of disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician. The period within which the seafarer shall be entitled to his sickness allowance shall not exceed 120 days. Payment of the sickness allowance shall be made on a regular basis, but not less than once a month. ICHDca
xxx xxx xxx
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. In the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the company-designated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed to by the seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.
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. (Emphasis supplied)
From the foregoing, the company-designated doctor is primarily vested with the responsibility to determine the disability grading or fitness to work of seafarers. 19 In relation thereto, if there is a claim for total and permanent disability benefits by a seafarer, the following rules shall govern:
1. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;
2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total;
3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g., seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and
4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total. 20 (Emphasis supplied)
It must be stressed, nonetheless, that while it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman's disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of the latter's employment, the same is not automatically final, binding or conclusive. 21 To be conclusive, the medical assessment or report of the company-designated physician must be complete and definite for the purpose of ascertaining the degree of the seafarer's disability benefits. 22
Corollarily, a seafarer's compliance with the procedure on third-doctor referral presupposes that the company-designated physician came up with an assessment as to the seafarer's fitness or unfitness to work before the expiration of the 120-day or 240-day periods. 23The third-doctor rule doesnot apply when there is no valid final and definitive assessment from acompany-designated physician. 24
Here, the Court cannot sustain the findings of the LA, NLRC, and the CA that the Disability Grading of Grade 11, supposedly issued by petitioners' company-designated physician, was the final medical assessment contemplated under the law and settled jurisprudence. While findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on the Court, 25 such rule admits of exceptions, e.g., when there is misapprehension of facts and when the inference made is manifestly mistaken. 26
To be sure, the purported final medical assessment 27 dated March 4, 2016 can hardly be considered complete and definite so as to trigger the third-doctor referral procedure under the POEA-SEC. First, unlike the series of medical reports 28 issued by petitioners' company-designated physician detailing the status and progress of Hijara's treatment, the purported final assessment was denominated as "Private and Confidential," addressed to Pandiman Philippines, Inc./Ms. Jennifer Manglit Magsino, and contained neither an explanation on how the disability grading of Grade 11 was arrived at by the specialist nor a final diagnosis of Hijara's medical condition. The name of the specialist who gave the alleged final disability grading was also not indicated in the document. Second, there was no showing that such "Private and Confidential" medical assessment was relayed and explained to Hijara. Third, the indefiniteness of the March 4, 2016 assessment is further manifested by the statement "if patient is entitled to disability, his final disability grading is Grade 11 — slight rigidity or 1/3 loss of lifting power of the trunk." Clearly, although the March 4, 2016 assessment stated "final disability grading," the same miserably fell short of the requirements on completeness and definitiveness to make it conclusive and binding with respect to the determination of the amount of Hijara's disability compensation. Notably, this was respondent's firm stance before the LA, NLRC, and the CA. 29
Verily, although Hijara did consult independent physicians regarding his condition, the lack of a conclusive and definite assessment from petitioners left him nothing to properly contest and as such, negates the need for him to comply with the third-doctor referral provision under the 2010 POEA-SEC. 30 Simply stated, absent a final assessment from the company-designated physician; Hijara had nothing to contest and the law steps in to conclusively characterize his disability as total and permanent. 31 TCAScE
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The June 9, 2020 Decision and February 11, 2021 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 153911 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Gamboa v. Maunlad Trans., Inc., G.R. No. 232905, August 20, 2018, citing Kestrel Shipping Co.,Inc. v. Munar, 702 Phil. 717, 738 (2013).
2.Rollo, pp. 3-39.
3.Id. at 50-64; penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao (now a Member of this Court) and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
4.Id. at 88-89.
5.Id. at 138-152; penned by NLRC Presiding Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III and concurred in by Commissioners Erlinda T. Agus and Dominador B. Medroso, Jr.
6.Id. at 131-136, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. (M) 04-05045-16 before the Labor Arbiter, penned by Labor Arbiter Claradel C. Javier-Rotor.
7.Id. at 153-171.
8.Id. at 139.
9.Id. at 136.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 149-150.
12.Id. at 170-171.
13.Id. at 10.
14.Id. at 61.
15.Id. at 62-63.
16.Id. at 89.
17.Id. at 11-31.
18.Chan v. Magsaysay Corporation, G.R. No. 239055, March 11, 2020.
19.Id.
20.Magsaysay Mitsui OSK Marine, Inc. v. Buenaventura, 823 Phil. 245, 259 (2018), citing Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, 765 Phil. 341, 361-363 (2015).
21.Dohle Philman Manning Agency v. Doble, 819 Phil. 500, 511 (2017).
22.Chan v. Magsaysay Corporation, supra note 18.
23.Multinational Ship Management, Inc. v. Briones, G.R. No. 239793, January 27, 2020, Kestrel ShippingCo., Inc. v. Munar, supra note 1 at 737-738.
24.Chan v. Magsaysay Corporation, supra note 18 citing Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara, G.R. No. 204307, June 6, 2018.
25.Dohle Philman Manning Agency v. Doble, supra note 21 at 509.
26.Id.
27.Rollo, p. 209. The photocopy attached to the petition is illegible, but the contents of the alleged medical assessment were incorporated by Hijara in his reply and rejoinder before the LA (Id. at 270 and 324-325); see also p. 142.
28.Id. at 199-208.
29.Id. at 269-280, 322-326, 339-347, and 383-404.
30. See Gamboa v. Maunlad Trans., Inc., supra note 1.
31.Id.