NORIEL R. MONTIERRO,
petitioner, vs. RICKMERS MARINE AGENCY PHILS., INC., respondent
G.R. No.210634 | January 14, 2015
FACTS:
On February 26, 2010, Rickmers Marine
Agency Phils. hired petitioner Noriel Montierro as an Ordinary Seaman onboard
the vessel M/V CSAV Maresias. Sometime in May 2010, while onboard the vessel and
going down from a crane ladder, Montierro lost his balance and twisted his
legs, thus injuring his right knee. Thereafter, on May 31, 2010, he was
examined by a doctor in Spain, who recommended surgical treatment at home and
found him unfit for duty. Thus, on June 2, 2010, Montierro was repatriated to
the Philippines for further medical treatment.
Two days after his repatriation, Montierro
reported to the company-designated physician, who recommended the he go through
arthroscopic partial medical meniscectomy on his right knee.
On his second checkup with the
company-designated physician, Dr. Alegre, the doctor noted that his surgical
wounds had healed but that there was still pain and limitation of motion on his
right knee. The doctor advised him to undergo rehabilitation medicine and
continue physical therapy.
On 3 September 2010, the 91st day of
Montierro’s treatment, Dr. Alegre issued an interim disability grade of 10 for
“stretching leg of ligaments of a knee resulting in instability of the joint.”
He advised Montierro to continue with the latter’s physical therapy and oral
medications.
On December 3, 2010, Montierro filed with
the labor arbiter a complaint for recovery of permanent disability
compensation. To support his claim, Montierro relied on a Medical Certificate
dated 3 December 2010 issued by his physician of choice, Dr. Manuel C. Jacinto,
recommending total permanent disability grading.
The LA held that Montierro was entitled to
permanent total disability benefits. The LA relied on the 120-day rule
introduced by the Crystal Shipping Inc. v. Natividad case, which ruled that the
inability of the seafarer to perform work for more than 120 days equates to
permanent total disability, which entitles a seafarer to full disability
benefits. The NLRC affirmed the Decision of the LA.
The CA held that Montierro was entitled
merely to “Grade 10” permanent partial disability benefits. It ruled that his
disability could not be deemed total and permanent under the 240-day rule
established by the 2008 case Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc. It
pointed out that only 215 days had lapsed from the time of Montierro’s medical
repatriation when the company-designated physician issued a “Grade 10” final
disability assessment. It justified the extension of the period to 240 days on
the ground that Dr. Alegre issued an interim disability grade of “10” on 3
September 2010, the 91st day of Montierro’s treatment, which was within the
initial 120-day period. Further, the CA upheld the jurisprudential rule that,
in case of conflict, it is the recommendation issued by the company-designated
physician that prevails over the recommendation of the claimant’s physician of
choice.
ISSUE:
Whether it is the opinion of the company
doctor or of the personal doctor of the seafarer that should prevail
RULING:
In the Vergara case, the Court held that
there is a procedure to be followed regarding the determination of liability
for work-related death, illness or injury in the case of overseas Filipino
seafarers. The procedure is spelled out in the 2000 POEA-SEC, the execution of
which is a sine qua non requirement in deployments for overseas work.
The procedure is as follows: when a
seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury while onboard the vessel,
his fitness for work shall be determined by the company-designated physician.
The physician has 120 days, or 240 days, if validly extended, to make the
assessment. If the physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the
assessment of the company-designated physician, the opinion of a third doctor
may be agreed jointly between the employer and seafarer, whose decision shall
be final and binding on them.
Vergara ruled that the procedure in the
2000 POEA-SEC must be strictly followed; otherwise, if not availed of or
followed strictly by the seafarer, the assessment of the company-designated
physician stands.
In this case, Montierro, pre-empted the
procedure when he filed on 3 December 2010 a Complaint for permanent disability
benefits based on his chosen physician’s assessment, which was made one month
before the company-designated doctor issued the final disability grading on 3
January 2011, the 213th day of Montierro’s treatment.
Hence, for failure of Montierro to observe
the procedure provided by the POEA-SEC, the assessment of the company doctor
should prevail.
Comments
Post a Comment