Facts
Petitioner was hired by Alfa as Second Officer on September 16, 2013, through its local manning agent, Jebsens. His employment was covered by a standard employment contract for a period of six months.
Halfway through his contract, he was allegedly involved in an accident while on board the vessel. He slipped and fell, hitting his buttocks on the floor while releasing the tug line of the ship. His lower back pain persisted. He then requested a medical consultation.
Radiographs and CT scans of his lumbar spine revealed an L1 vertebral fracture. He was given pain medications and was advised to undergo physical therapy and to only take light jobs. In view of his medical condition, he was declared unfit to work and was repatriated on March 29, 2014.
The petitioner had a total of 12 sessions of physical therapy. 108 days from the petitioner’s repatriation, he was issued a final medical report by the company-designated physician declaring him fit to work.
However, petitioner was unsatisfied with the findings of the company-designated physician. He, thus, sought the opinion of a physician of his choice. Dr. Magtira declared petitioner permanently unfit in any capacity for further sea duties after thorough history taking and physical examination.
Respondents, on the other hand, averred that petitioner had already finished his contract on March 19, 2014, when the latter complained of back pains. They denied that the petitioner suffered an injury due to an accident that occurred on board the vessel.
Petitioner filed a complaint with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision dismissing the petitioner’s complaint for lack of merit, which the NLRC affirmed. The CA likewise affirmed the Resolution of the NLRC and held that, while the petitioner’s injury was work-related, he is nonetheless disqualified to claim disability benefits for having failed to observe the third-doctor referral provision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the third-doctor referral provision was violated, thereby disqualifying the petitioner to claim total and permanent disability benefits under the POEA-SEC.
Ruling
NO. In Gamboa v. Maunlad Trans, Inc., the Court reiterated the settled rule that the entitlement of a seafarer on overseas employment to disability benefits is governed by law, by the parties’ contracts, and by the medical findings. By law, the relevant statutory provisions are Articles 197 to 199 (formerly Arts. 191 to 193) of the Labor Code in relation to Sec. 2(a), Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation. By contract, the material contracts are the POEA-SEC, which is deemed incorporated in every seafarer’s employment contract and considered to be the minimum requirements acceptable to the government, the parties’ CBA, if any, and the employment agreement between the seafarer and the employer.
Medical findings of the company-designated physician are given weight as such physician is, under the law, obligated to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer’s fitness or degree of disability within a period of 120 days from repatriation, subject to extension of up to 240 days when further medical attention is necessary. It is the company-designated physician’s duty to issue a final medical assessment of the seafarer’s disability grade or his fitness to work. On the other hand, the law also requires the seafarer to 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.
As corollary, the seafarer may also consult a physician of his choice. The same law expressly provides that in case of disagreement or conflict between the findings of the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s physician of choice, a third doctor may be jointly agreed upon by the parties. The findings of the third doctor shall be final and binding on both the employer and the seafarer. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that referral to a third doctor is mandatory, and the party who fails to abide, thereby, would be in breach of the POEA-SEC.
The initiative for referral to a third doctor should come from the employee. He must actively or expressly request it. Consequently, the Minutes of the Single Entry Approach (SENA) revealed that petitioner expressly proposed the referral to a third doctor. It was the respondents who refused this, claiming through their counsel that they had not been given authority to refer the case to a third doctor.
To reiterate, referral to a third doctor is mandatory in case of disagreements between the findings of the company-designated physician and the employee’s physician of choice. Jurisprudence further holds that upon notification by the seafarer of his intention to refer the conflicting findings to a third doctor, the company carries the burden of initiating the process for referral to a third doctor, commonly agreed upon between the parties.
In this case, respondents clearly failed to abide by the mandatory referral procedure under the law. As a result, the findings of the company-designated physician cannot be automatically deemed conclusive and binding.
Accordingly, the Court gave greater weight and credence to the medical report of the petitioner’s physician, Dr. Magtira, that the former is deemed permanently disabled and unfit for any sea duties.
The law looks tenderly on the laborer. Thus, where the evidence may be reasonably interpreted in two divergent ways, one prejudicial and the other favorable to him, the balance must be tilted in his favor consistent with the principle of social justice.