CASE DIGEST: Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime

 

JESUS E. VERGARA, petitioner, vs. HAMMONIA MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and ATLANTIC MARINE LTD., respondents

G.R. No. 172933                |              October 6, 2008

FACTS:

Seaman Jesus E. Vergara was hired by respondent Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc. on April 4, 2000. He was assigned to work on board the vessel British Valour as a pumpman under contract for 9 months starting on April 15, 2000.

In August 2000, he complained to the Ship Captain that he was seeing black dots and hairy figures floating in front of his right eye. His condition developed into a gradual visual loss. When he consulted a physician in Texas, he was diagnosed to be suffering from “vitreal hemorrhage with small defined area of retinal traction. He was advised to see an ophthalmologist when he returned home to the Philippines.

He was sent home on September 5, 2000 for medical treatment. The company-designated physician, Dr. Robert D. Lim, confirmed the correctness of the diagnosis of the Texan doctor. Dr. Lim then referred the petitioner to an ophthalmologist at the Chinese General Hospital.

On January 31, 2001, the ophthalmologist pronounced the petitioner fit to resume his seafaring duties. The petitioner then executed a “certificate of fitness for work” in the presence of Dr. Lim. Claiming that he continued to experience gradual visual loss despite the treatment, he sought a second opinion from another ophthalmologist, Dr. Patrick Rey R. Echiverri. Dr. Echiverri gave the opinion that the petitioner was not fit to work as a pumpman because the job could precipitate the resurgence of his former condition.

On March 20, 2001, petitioner submitted himself to another examination by another physician who was not also designated by the company, Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo. Dr. Vicaldo opined that although the petitioner was fit to work, he had a Grade X (20.15%) disability which he considered as permanent partial disability.

Armed with these 2 separate diagnoses, petitioner demanded disability and sickness benefits from his employer. The company did not heed his demand, prompting the petitioner to file a complaint for disability benefits, sickness allowance, damages and attorney’s fees.

The LA rendered a decision in the petitioner’s favour, which was reversed upon appeal to the NLRC. The NLRC dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner had been declared fit to resume sea duty and was not entitled to any disability benefit. Likewise, the CA also dismissed the petition. Hence, the present petition.

Petitioner particularly questions the CA decision for giving credit to the certification by the company-designated physician, Dr. Robert Lim, that declared him fit to work. He impugns the pronouncement of Dr. Lim since he did not personally operate on and attend to him when he was treated. The petitioner stresses that Dr. Lim’s certification was not based on his first hand findings as it was issued in his capacity as the “Medical Coordinator” of the Metropolitan Hospital. He also points out that Dr. Lim is not an eye specialist. To the petitioner, it is the competence of the attending physician and not the circumstance of his being company-designated that should be the key consideration in determining the true status of the health of the patient/seaman. The petitioner contends that because there is doubt as to the accuracy of the medical opinion of the company-designated physician, the doubt should be resolved in his favour.

ISSUE:

When there is a conflict between the company-designated physician’s findings and that of a doctor chosen by seafarer, whose findings will prevail

RULING:

The POEA Standard Employment Contract and the CBA clearly provide that when a seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board the vessel, his fitness or unfitness for work shall be determined by the company-designated physician. If the physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, the opinion of a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer to be the decision final and binding on them.

Thus, while petitioner had the right to seek a second and even a third opinion, the final determination of whose decision must prevail must be done in accordance with an agreed procedure. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not avail of this procedure; hence, the company-designated doctor’s certification is the final determination that must prevail.

The Court is mindful that the company had exerted real effort to provide the petitioner with medical assistance, such that the petitioner finally ended with a 20/20 vision. The company- designated physician, too, monitored the petitioner’s case from the beginning. Thus the Court cannot simply throw out his certification just because he has no expertise in ophthalmology. Under the facts of this case, it was the company-designated doctor who referred the petitioner’s case to the proper medical specialist whose medical results are not essentially disputed; who monitored the petitioner’s case during its progress; and who issued his certification on the basis of the medical records available and the results obtained.