Tolentino, Jr. v. Laurel Carriers Phils., Inc.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 230501. May 14, 2021.]

JULIO N. TOLENTINO, JR., petitioner, vs. LAUREL CARRIERS PHILS., INC. AND REMI MARITIME CORPORATION, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated May 14, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 230501 — (Julio N. Tolentino, Jr., Petitioner, v. Laurel Carriers Phils., Inc. and Remi Maritime Corporation,Respondents.) — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (petition) seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated 21 September 2016 and Resolution 3 dated 09 March 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) inCA-G.R. SP No. 138576, dismissing the petition for certiorari filed bypetitioner Julio N. Tolentino, Jr. (petitioner).

Antecedents

On 10 March 2011, petitioner entered into a contract with Skippers United Pacific, Inc., which was acting on behalf of its foreign principal, respondent Remi Maritime Corporation, to serve as Ordinary Seaman in the latter's vessel. Petitioner was deployed on 30 March 2011 for a contract period of nine (9) months, with a basic monthly salary of US$405.00. Three (3) months after, or on 15 June 2011, petitioner felt pain in the lower abdominal area and was given pain relievers. He continued performing his work, which entailed lifting of heavy objects. The pain worsened. On 17 June 2011, when the vessel arrived in Thailand, he was brought to a shore-based physician who diagnosed his condition as urethritis and prescribed medications therefor. 4

Despite the medications given, the pain in petitioner's lower abdominal area persisted. He consulted again with doctors in Thailand and West Africa, who prescribed additional medication. When petitioner's condition failed to improve, he was medically repatriated on 29 September 2011. 5

Upon his return to the country, petitioner was referred to Dr. Robert Lim, one of respondents' company-designated physicians. After a series of medical examinations, petitioner was diagnosed with "Testicular Varicocele, Bilateral" and was recommended for surgery. Petitioner had his "Bilateral Varicocelectomy" surgery on 16 February 2012. Thereafter, he was paid his full sickness allowance for the period covering 120 days. In a medical certificate 6 dated 03 May 2012, the company-designated physicians declared petitioner fit to work, thus —

This is a follow-up report on OS Julio N. Tolentino, Jr. who was initially seen here at Metropolitan Medical Center on October 14, 2011 and was diagnosed to have Antral Gastritis; Hiatal Hernia Varicocoele, Bilateral; S/P Bilateral Varicocelectomy on February 16, 2012.

Patient was previously cleared by the Urologist.

At present, patient has no complaints of abdominal discomfort.

Repeat Gastroscopy showed normal esophagogastroduodenal mucosa.

The specialist opines that the patient is now cleared with regards to the cause of his repatriation.

Enclosed are the comments on the specialists.

However, patient did not sign his certificate of fitness to work since he claimed that he has low back pain and is requesting if the agency can cover his treatment.

He was pronounced fit to resume sea duties as of May 3, 2012.

For your perusal.

However, claiming that he still felt pain in his lower abdominal area and back, petitioner refused to sign the certificate of fitness for work. 7

Petitioner subsequently wrote respondents requesting for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on his lumbosacral spine. Despite not receiving an answer from respondents, he underwent MRI which showed that he had "straightened lumbar lordosis which [may be] due to muscle spasms." Thereafter, petitioner consulted Dr. Omar T. Cortes (Dr. Cortes), a urologist, who issued a certification stating that he examined the former and saw petitioner's previous medical records. He likewise declared that "[t]he recurrence of testicular pains and low back pains may recur especially for moderate to strenuous physical activities. Hence, he is unfit for manual work." 8

Further, petitioner consulted an internist-cardiologist, Dr. May S. Donato-Tan (Dr. Donato-Tan), who issued a medical certificate declaring him to be permanently disabled. She noted that petitioner continued to experience severe epigastric pain, despite antacid medications, and pain in his groin, which would hinder the effective performance of his duties as seaman. 9

Consequently, petitioner demanded from respondents payment of full disability benefits. The latter refused, prompting petitioner to file a complaint for disability benefits, damages, and attorney's fees against respondents. Petitioner averred that despite the treatment given to him by the company-designated physicians, his condition had not improved and his back pain continued. He also rejected the company-designated physicians, medical report on his condition, particularly the "fit to work" assessment, since the latter were allegedly not specialists in the field of urology and, therefore, not specially trained to treat his medical condition. 10

As an aside, respondent Laurel Carriers Phils., Inc., had assumed all the obligations of Equal Marine International, which had earlier assumed the obligations of Skippers United Pacific, Inc. Hence, petitioner re-filed his complaint to implead Laurel Carriers Phils., Inc. 11

Respondents, on the other hand, argued that the medical assessment of the company-designated physicians must prevail over that of petitioner's personal physicians, considering that the former were the ones who conducted petitioner's treatment and monitored his condition. Moreover, petitioner's back pains were not contracted during the term of his employment contract, since petitioner only mentioned the same on 29 May 2012, or several months after his repatriation. 12

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter (LA)

In his Decision 13 dated 02 June 2014, the LA ruled that petitioner was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The LA ratiocinated that hernia, the illness of petitioner, was an occupational disease under Section 32-A (19) of the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), and that he suffered the same while working for respondents. The LA held that there was a strong probability that petitioner's hernia might recur should he return to work and perform strenuous physical activities on board the vessel. 14

Aggrieved, respondents filed their appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

Ruling of the NLRC

The NLRC, in its Decision 15 dated 29 August 2014, granted the appeal of respondents. The NLRC pointed out that the alleged back pains, which petitioner used as basis for his claim for disability benefits, occurred only in May 2012, which was way beyond his tenure with respondents, considering that his employment with them ended in September 2011. 16

Petitioner, thereafter, sought recourse to the CA by filing a petition for certiorari.

Ruling of the CA

In its Decision dated 21 September 2016, the CA dismissed the petition for the following reasons: (a) petitioner did not observe the third-doctor referral provision in the POEA-SEC; and (b) the company-designated physicians' findings generally prevail over other medical findings. 17

Petitioner subsequently moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion in its Resolution 18 dated 09 March 2017. Hence, the filing of the instant petition before this Court.

Issues

Petitioner raises the following issues:

a) The Court of Appeals committed a serious error of law in not holding that the third doctor's provision under the POEA-SEC is a mutual agreement between the parties;

b) The Court of Appeals committed a serious error of fact in upholding the fit to work assessment of the company-designated physicians;

c) Petitioner's claim for 10% attorney's fees is based on law and jurisprudence.

Ruling of the Court

The Court finds the petition without merit.

At the outset, We have to point out that the LA erred in finding that petitioner suffered from hernia and in eventually ruling in favor of petitioner. True, petitioner was initially diagnosed to have hiatal hernia 19 but eventually, the LA declared that petitioner is entitled to disability benefits due to inguinal hernia. 20 However, inguinal hernia is different from hiatal hernia. Inguinal hernia is located in the lower abdomen just above the leg crease, near or adjacent to the pubic area. It is a type of groin hernia and can produce pain that extends into the upper thigh or scrotum. On the other hand, hiatal hernia is slightly different from other types of hernias because it is a weakness or opening in the diaphragm, which is the muscle that separates the chest cavity from the abdominal cavity. This hernia causes reflux of acid from the stomach into the esophagus, which can lead to heartburn, pain, and erosion of the esophagus. 21

It is to be pointed out that petitioner has already been cleared of the cause of his repatriation, i.e., lower abdominal pain or testicular varicocele, which, We might stress, never included inguinal hernia or back pain. As an aside, petitioner's personal physicians did not diagnose petitioner to be suffering from hernia. Moreover, petitioner's complaint of back pain surfaced only on 29 May 2012, several months after his repatriation. 22

Thus, the LA's reliance on an illness, i.e., hernia, which petitioner is not suffering from, and a condition, i.e., back pain, which was not the cause for petitioner's medical repatriation, is erroneous. Petitioner's complaint should have been dismissed from the onset for lack of cause of action.

Even if We disregard the same, the petition must still be denied.

While We agree that petitioner's request for a third doctor referral was left unheeded, this, does not mean, however, that the assessment made by petitioner's personal physicians should prevail over that of the company-designated physicians. After all, there was no showing that the assessment of the latter was biased in favor of respondents.

Here, petitioner was subjected to a lengthy treatment by the company-designated physicians for a period of almost seven (7) months starting from the time of his repatriation on 29 September 2011 to the time he was issued a fit to work certification on 03 May 2012. As correctly observed by the CA, the medical attention given to petitioner by the company-designated physicians during that period enabled the latter to acquire a detailed knowledge and familiarity with the former's medical condition and progress. Such familiarity enabled said physicians to arrive at a more accurate appraisal of petitioner's condition.

In contrast, petitioner's personal physicians, Dr. Cortes and Dr. Donato-Tan, issued their assessments after they each had a single consultation with petitioner and who apparently only relied on the findings made by the company-designated physicians. 23 Thus, as between the findings of the company-designated physicians, including a urologist, who periodically treated petitioner for months and monitored his condition, as against the latter's personal physicians who appeared to have examined petitioner only once, the former's finding deserve greater evidentiary weight than the single medical report of petitioner's personal physicians. 24

Under Section 20 (A) (6) of the POEA-SEC, the determination of the proper disability benefits to be given to a seafarer shall depend on the grading system provided by Section 32 of the said contract, regardless of the actual number of days that the seafarer underwent treatment. 25 Noticeably, there was no disability grading in the medical certificate issued by Dr. Cortes. The medical certificate states that "he is unfit for manual work." This statement is not sufficient for this Court to conclude that petitioner is permanently and totally disabled to work as a seafarer. 26

Since the company-designated physicians have declared that petitioner was fit to work, he is, therefore, not entitled to disability compensation. Necessarily, he is not entitled to attorney's fees.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 21 September 2016 and Resolution dated 09 March 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138576, are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 09-24.

2.Id. at 268-284; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes of the Court of Appeals, Manila.

3.Id. at 296-297.

4.Id. at 179 and 269.

5.Id. at 269.

6.Seeid. at pp. 3-4.

7.Id. at 181, 269-271.

8.Id. at 39, 271.

9.Id. at 271-272.

10.Id. at 272.

11.Id.

12.Id. at 273.

13.Id. at 179-187; penned by LA Quintin B. Cueto III.

14.Id. at 186.

15.Id. at 188-198; penned by Commissioner Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Grace E. Maniquiz-Tan and Commissioner Dolores M. Peralta-Beley.

16.Id. at 195-196.

17.Id. at 277 and 280.

18.Id. at 296-297.

19.Rollo, p. 181.

20.Id. at 186.

21. TYPES OF HERNIAS. Available at <https://www.herniaclinic.co.nz/information/types-of-hernias> (last accessed on 11 May 2021).

22.Rollo, p. 273.

23.Id. at 281.

24.See C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Castillo, 809 Phil. 180 (2017), G.R. No. 208215, 19 April 2017 [Per J. Peralta] citing Dalusong v. Eagle Clarc Shipping Phils., Inc., 742 Phil. 377 (2014), G.R. No. 204233, 03 September 2014 [Per Acting CJ Carpio).

25.Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Rapiz, 803 Phil. 266 (2017), G.R. No. 218871, 11 January 2017 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe).

26.Toliongco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 231748, 08 July 2020 [Per J. Leonen].