Paulino Ungos III

Lawyer | Law Professor | Author

Category: Social Legislation

  • Seafarer’s Obligation to Comply with His Medical Treatment

    Seachest Associates, through its manning agent, Maunlad Trans, Inc. hired the seafarer as a Galley Steward on-board MV Carnival. Several months into his employment, the seafarer began experiencing seasickness and extreme low back pains. Despite medications administered by the ship’s clinic, the pain persisted and extended down to the seafarer’s left thigh.

    Soon, the seafarer was medically repatriated and arrived in the Philippines on 23 January 2010. He reported to Maunlad Trans, Inc. and was referred to its designated physician. The seafarer underwent physical therapy sessions and was diagnosed with ‘lumbar spondylosis with disc extrusion, L3-L4.’ He was also advised to undergo surgery, spine laminectomy. However, he did not approve of the same and instead underwent physical therapy sessions. According to the seafarer, he refused because the company-designated physician informed him that the surgery will not guarantee a return to his normal condition.

    On 6 May 2010, the seafarer returned for a follow-up, and the report on his condition stated:

    Follow-up case of 28 years old male with Herniated Nucleus
    Pulposus, L3-L4, Left.
    EMG-NCV Study — chronic left L5-S1 radiculopathy
    Not keen on surgery.
    Continue rehabilitation.
    His suggested disability grading is Grade 8 — 2/3 loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk.
    To come back after 3 weeks.

    On 14 May 2010, the seafarer filed his complaint for total and permanent disability benefits since his condition did not improve for purposes of resuming regular duties as a seafarer. The employers retorted that the company-designated physician assessed the seafarer a disability rating of Grade 8, which had equivalent monetary benefits in the amount of US$16,795.00.

    The Office of the Labor Arbiter ruled that the company-designated physician’s Grade 8 disability rating was premature, in that it was made only to comply with the 120-day period as mandated in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract. The said Office further ruled that the work-related disability incurred by the seafarer had prevented him from seeking employment. Permanent disability benefits was accordingly awarded in favor of the seafarer.

    The National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the Office of the Labor Arbiter. The Court of Appeals added that:

    • the company-designated physician failed to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer’s fitness or disability within the 120/240-day periods provided under the law;
    • the company-designated physician’s last report on the seafarer’s condition which “suggested” a disability grading of “Grade 8 — 2/3 loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk” was not a final or definite assessment of his fitness or disability because the seafarer was still required to return after three weeks for further examination;
    • regardless of the fact that the seafarer was required to return for further examination, the statutory 120/240-day periods would have elapsed without the seafarer being issued either a final and definitive disability assessment or a fit-to-work certification;
    • the seafarer’s condition would not have improved even with the prescribed surgery, which he refused to undergo, because as admitted by the company-designated physician it did not guarantee improvement of seafarer’s condition;
    • the seafarer was unable to resume his regular sea duties, his inability to find work had continued, and he was not re-employed; and
    • with the lapse of the statutory 120/240-day periods without the seafarer’s having gone back to work, he should be deemed totally and permanently disabled.

    Ruling:

    The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and declared that the seafarer was entitled to disability benefits in the amount of US$16,795.00 only, equivalent to Grade 8 disability under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract.

    Section 20(D) of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract states that “[n]o compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of his duties, provided however, that the employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly attributable to the seafarer.”

    According to the Supreme Court, the seafarer was duty-bound to comply with his medical treatment in order to give the company-designated physician the opportunity to determine his fitness to work or to assess the degree of his disability. His inability to continue his treatment without any valid explanation showed that he neglected such duty to continue his medical treatment.

    In the present case, the seafarer filed his complaint on 14 May 2010 — or just 110 days from his medical repatriation on 23 January 2010 — before the 120/240-day periods allowed under the Labor Code of the Philippines could elapse, and before the company-designated physician could render a definite assessment of his medical condition. According to the Court, the filing of the labor case was premature. By failing to continue with the treatment prescribed by the company-designated physician and instead filing the labor case before the expiration of the 120-day period, the seafarer violated the law and his contract with his employer and was thus guilty of abandoning his treatment.

    With regard to the claim of the seafarer that the surgery was not a guarantee that his condition will return to normal, the Court stated that the same does not entitle him to the indemnity he has sought. The fact remained that he violated his contract and the law. His infraction erased any benefit he may have derived from such argument. Although acknowledging that this was a medical opinion shared by the company-designated physician, the Court stated that it had the discretion to rely on such opinion or discard it altogether.

    The Court added that without the seafarer undergoing the prescribed 120/240-day periods for treatment, his employer was deprived of the opportunity to assist him in finding a cure for his condition and thus minimize any legal and pecuniary liability it may be held answerable for. At the same time, there was no way of assessing the seafarer’s medical condition with finality. Without such assessment, no corresponding indemnity was forthcoming. The seafarer must subject himself to treatment as prescribed by the law and the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, for such requirement is patently for his benefit in all respects.

    Further reading:

    • Maunlad Trans, Inc. v. Rodelas, Jr., G.R. No. 225705, April 1, 2019.

    Check Out My Latest YouTube Video

    [embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/embed?listType=playlist&list=UUA0qsY28UIiqNcY45Ez2rjg&layout=gallery[/embedyt]

  • Extent of Disability vs. Determination of Fitness for Sea Duty

    If there is a claim for total and permanent disability benefits by a seafarer, the following rules shall govern:

    • 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;
    • 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;
    • 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
    • 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, regardless of any justification.

    The extent of the disability (whether total or partial) of the seafarer is determined, not by the number of days that he could not work, but by the disability grading the doctor recognizes based on his resulting incapacity to work and earn his wages.

    However, the determination of the fitness of a seafarer for sea duty is the province of the company-designated physician, subject to the periods prescribed by law.

    Further reading:

    • Intermodal Shipping, Inc. v. Escalona, G.R. No. 243380 April 1, 2019.

  • The Party Who Secures the Opinion of a Third Doctor

    Under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, when the seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board the vessel, his fitness or unfitness for work should be determined by the company-designated physician.

    However, if the doctor appointed by the seafarer makes a finding contrary to that of the assessment of the company-designated physician, a third doctor might be agreed upon jointly by the employer and the seafarer, and the third doctor’s decision would be final and binding on both parties.

    The non-observance of the requirement to have the conflicting assessments determined by a third doctor would mean that the assessment of the company-designated physician prevails.

    The Supreme Court denied the seafarer’s claim for disability benefits in this case.

    According to the Court, the need for the third doctor’s evaluation of the seafarer arose after his personal doctor declared him unfit for seafaring duties. The seafarer could not initiate his claim for disability solely on the basis of the declaration of his personal doctor. He should have instead set in motion the process of submitting himself to assessment by the third doctor by first serving the notice of his intent to do so on the employer.

    The Court stressed that there was no other way to validate the claim of the seafarer but this. Without the notice of intent to refer the seafarer’s case to the third doctor, the employer could not itself initiate the referral.

    Unless the seafarer served the notice of his intent, he could not then validly insist on an assessment different from that made by the company-designated physician. This outcome, which accorded with the procedure expressly set in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, was unavoidable for him.

    The employer could insist on the disability rating of its company-designated physician even against a contrary opinion by another doctor, unless the seafarer signified his intent to submit the disputed assessment to a third doctor. The duty to secure the opinion of a third doctor belonged to the employee asking for disability benefits. Said employee must actively or expressly request for it.

    Further reading:

    • Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. v. Alferos, G.R. No. 216795, April 1, 2019.

  • Seafarer’s Noncompliance with the Third Doctor Referral Procedure

    The seafarer entered into a 9-month employment contract with Veritas Maritime Corp. to work as a bosun on board the M/V Bangkok Highway, a vessel owned by TNCK Kline. He boarded the vessel on 15 October 2011.

    The seafarer claimed that while he was on official duty on 10 February 2012, thinner solution spilled over his face, neck, chest, and arm, which suffered third-degree burns. When the vessel reached the port in Korea, the seafarer was brought to Dr. Kim Sung Jin, who diagnosed him to have suffered about a 15% to 20% third-degree burn. Said doctor declared him unfit for work, and recommended that he be immediately hospitalized for special burn treatment.

    The seafarer arrived in the Philippines on 23 February 2012 and was placed under the care of the company-designated physician, who diagnosed him with contact dermatitis.

    On 25 May 2012, the company-designated physician declared him fit to go back to work.

    The seafarer thereafter consulted his personal doctor who declared that he is not yet well.

    On 27 July 2012, the seafarer filed a complaint against Veritas Maritime Corp., et al., for payment of permanent total disability benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

    Question:

    Will the seafarer’s complaint prosper?

    Answer:

    No. The complaint should be dismissed.

    Section 20 (A) (2)1Relevant portion states: “2. x x x However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the employer until such time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the company-designated physician.” and (3)2Relevant portion states: “3. x x x 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.” of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract3Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships, POEA Memorandum Circular No. 010, Series of 2010. requires the company-designated physician to determine the seafarer’s fitness to work or degree of disability upon the seafarer’s medical repatriation. Nonetheless, the seafarer may dispute the company-designated physician’s report by seasonably consulting another doctor. If this doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician, 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. Jurisprudence4Escabusa v. Veritas Maritime Corp., G.R. No. 223732, January 16, 2019; Magsaysay Maritime Corp. et al. v. Verga, G.R. No. 221250, October 10, 2018; Calimlim v. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 220629, November 23, 2016; INC Navigation Co. Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Rosales, 744 Phil. 774 (2014); Phil. Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc., et al. v. Dumadag, 712 Phil. 507 (2013); Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corp., et al., 728 Phil. 244 (2014); Santiago v. Pacbasin ShipManagement, Inc., et al., 686 Phil. 255 (2012); Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency, Inc., et al., 698 Phil. 170 (2012); Masangcay v. Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc., et al., 590 Phil. 611 (2008); and Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., et al., 588 Phil. 895 (2008). dictates that this referral to a third doctor is a mandatory procedure that must be strictly followed.

    In the present case, it was shown that on 25 May 2012, about 3 months from his repatriation, the company-designated physician declared the seafarer fit for work.

    Although the seafarer consulted his personal doctor (who apparently had an opinion contrary to that reached by the company-designated physician), there was no showing that at the time the complaint was filed, said seafarer had observed the third doctor referral procedure under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract.

    The seafarer’s noncompliance with the third doctor referral procedure constituted a breach of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract and thus rendered his complaint dismissible for being premature. Jurisprudence5Escabusa v. Veritas Maritime Corp., G.R. No. 223732, January 16, 2019;Calimlim v. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc., et al., 800 Phil. 830 (2016); Veritas Maritime Corp., et al. v. Gepanaga, Jr., 753 Phil. 308 (2015); Philman Marine Agency, Inc., et al. v. Cabanban, 715 Phil. 454 (2013); and Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., et al., 588 Phil. 895 (2008). teaches that in such a situation, the company-designated physician’s findings should prevail.

    Further reading:

    • Escabusa v. Veritas Maritime Corp., G.R. No. 223732, January 16, 2019.

  • Rules on Seafarer Claims for Permanent Total Disability Benefits

    Abosta Shipmanagement Corporation/Cido Shipping Company Ltd. hired the seafarer as an able seaman on board the vessel M/V Grand Quest. The seafarer boarded the vessel on 16 June 2009.

    While he was on duty on 26 October 2010, the seafarer felt cramps followed by severe back pain. He was able to inform his master, who then advised him to rest. The next day, the seafarer was unable to stand that he remained in his cabin. When the vessel arrived in Panama, he was diagnosed with a lumbar disc problem and was recommended repatriation.

    On 2 December 2010, the seafarer arrived in Manila and was referred to the company-designated physician, who then proceeded to treat him. On 8 July 2011 the company-designated physician issued a disability rating of “Grade 8 disability — moderate rigidity or 2/3 loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk.”

    The seafarer asserts that despite the treatment he received, his condition did not improve, as the pain and discomfort persisted.

    The seafarer sought treatment from his personal doctor, who conducted his own examination. Said doctor concluded that the nature and extent of the seafarer’s injury rendered him permanently and totally unable to work as a seafarer.

    The seafarer demanded his employers to pay him total and permanent disability. Since the employers declined, the seafarer instituted his complaint for permanent total disability benefits and attorney’s fees against the former.

    Questions:

    1. Is the seafarer entitled to permanent total disability benefits?
    2. Can he be granted attorney’s fees?

    Answers:

    1)

    The seafarer is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.

    Jurisprudence dictates that if there is a claim for total and permanent disability benefits by a seafarer, the following rules shall govern:

    • 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;
    • 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;
    • 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
    • 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, regardless of any justification.

    In the present case, the company-designated physician failed to issue a medical assessment on the seafarer’s disability grading and determine the seafarer’s fitness to work within the prescribed periods.

    From the seafarer’s repatriation and immediate referral to the company-designated physician on 2 December 2010 until the 120th day of his treatment (31 March 2011), the latter did not issue any medical assessment.

    Although on 8 July 2011, the company-designated physician was able to issue a disability rating of “Grade 8 disability — moderate rigidity or 2/3 loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk,” 219 days have already lapsed from 2 December 2020 without any sufficient justification for the extension of the 120-day treatment period.

    Following prevailing jurisprudence, the seafarer’s disability has become permanent and total. Accordingly, the seafarer is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.

    2)

    The seafarer is also entitled to attorney’s fees. This is because under Article 2208, paragraph 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, attorney’s fees can be recovered in actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws.

    Further reading:

    • Abosta Shipmanagement Corp. v. Segui, G.R. No. 214906, January 16, 2019.

    Check Out My Latest YouTube Video

    [embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/embed?listType=playlist&list=UUA0qsY28UIiqNcY45Ez2rjg&layout=gallery[/embedyt]

  • Judicial Review of Orders or Decisions of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board

    The Rules of Court clearly provides that awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of quasi-judicial agencies are appealable to the Court of Appeals via Rule 43. Orders or decisions of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board may be brought on appeal to the Court of Appeals within 15 days from receipt of the same.12009 Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board Rules of Procedure

    Further reading:

    • Rivera v. Heirs of Cabling, G.R. No. 242036, January 14, 2019.

  • Establish Compliance with the Post-employment Medical Examination

    In Mesta v. United Philippine Lines, Inc.,1G.R. No. 242719, January 14, 2019. the Supreme Court emphasized that the seafarer must comply with the post-employment medical examination set forth under Section 20 (A) (3) of the Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships.2Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 10. Section 20 (A) (3) 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:
    x x x
    3. x x x 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.     The Court said:

    x x x [P]etitioner failed to establish compliance with the mandatory post-employment medical examination. Jurisprudence provides that one who alleges a critical fact has the burden to prove his allegation with substantial evidence, which petitioner failed to do. Aside from her bare allegation, records are bereft of any evidence to show that petitioner indeed went to respondent United Philippine Lines, Inc.’s office to request for medical attention which was allegedly rebuffed.

    Nevertheless, even assuming that petitioner did comply with the requisite post-employment medical examination, the CA was also correct in finding that the causal connection between her illness and the work she performed onboard the ship was not established. Petitioner merely presented documentary evidence to show her condition before and after the termination of her contract but failed to establish how the nature of her work increased the risk of contracting her illness. Thus, petitioner is not entitled to claim disability benefits under the POEA-SEC.

    Further Reading:

    • Mesta v. United Philippine Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 242719, January 14, 2019.

  • No Basis to Award Salary Equivalent to 3 Months

    In Alster International Shipping Services, Inc v. Acosta,1G.R. No. 242085, January 14, 2019. the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that an illegally dismissed migrant worker is entitled to payment of salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract. The Court said:

    With respect to the proper amount of indemnity due him, the provision of law, restricting wages recoverable by illegally dismissed overseas workers to three months only, having been struck down twice for its unconstitutionality, there is no more coherent legal basis for restricting the unpaid salaries award in favor of respondent to an amount equivalent to three months’ worth of work only. Hence, respondent is entitled to the payment of unpaid salaries equivalent to the remaining unexpired portion of his employment contract.

    Further reading:

    • Alster International Shipping Services, Inc v. Acosta, G.R. No. 242085, January 14, 2019.

  • Company-designated Physician’s Failure to Make a Definite Assessment

    Singa Ship Management Philippines, Inc. v. Ignes,1G.R. No. 243285, January 14, 2019. re-emphasized the rule that within the 120-day period from the seafarer’s repatriation, the company-designated physician must either make a definite assessment of the seafarer’s fitness to resume work or the degree of his permanent disability, or provide sufficient justification to extend the medical treatment from 120 days to 240 days. Failure of the company-designated physician to do so shall lead to a conclusive presumption that the seafarer’s disability is permanent and total. Said the Court:

    [F]rom the time of Ignes’ repatriation on November 26, 2015 until the expiration of the one hundred twenty (120)-day period on March 25, 2016, there was neither a final medical assessment nor recommendation for further treatment issued by the company-designated physician (CDP). Notably, the CDP’s March 30, 2016 Disability Grading and Medical Report, which was in fact issued after the 120-day assessment period under Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), did not state a definitive assessment of Ignes’ fitness or unfitness to resume his duties as a seafarer. While it declared that Ignes may return to work, it also stated that his capacity to return hinges on the result of his re-evaluation, which must be conducted six (6) months after his operation on January 25, 2016 or on or after July 25, 2016. It must be emphasized that the CDP must, within the 120-day period, either make a definite assessment of the seafarer’s fitness to resume work or the degree of his permanent disability,2See Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, 765 Phil. 341, 360 (2015). See also APQ Shipmanagement Co., Ltd. v. Caseñas, 735 Phil. 300, 320 (2014). See further Carcedo v. Maine Marine Philippines, Inc., 758 Phil. 166, 183 (2015). or provide sufficient justification to extend the medical treatment from 120 days to 240 days;3See Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara, G.R. No. 204307, June 6, 2018. otherwise, the seafarer’s disability shall be conclusively presumed to be permanent and total,4See Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Rapiz, 803 Phil. 266, 273 (2017). as in this case. Accordingly, the CA did not err in upholding the award of permanent total disability benefits to Ignes.

    Further reading:

    • Singa Ship Management Philippines, Inc. v. Ignes, G.R. No. 243285, January 14, 2019.

  • Prematurely Filing a Complaint for Permanent Total Disability Benefits

    On 3 November 2010, F.J. Lines, Inc. Panama, through its agent, Eastgate Maritime Corporation, hired the seafarer on board the vessel MV Corona Lions to work as a Chief Cook. The seafarer underwent the requisite Pre-Employment Medical Examination and was found fit for sea duty. Thereafter, he boarded the vessel on 4 December 2010.

    Sometime in November 2011, while in the performance of his duties, the seafarer experienced pain in his right leg radiating to his lower extremities. He reported the matter to the Master of the vessel who, in turn, brought him to a hospital in Reihoku, Japan on 14 November 2011. There, he was diagnosed to be suffering from urinary stone in his right urinary tract and was prescribed pain reliever drugs. Due to persistent back and leg pains, he was again taken to a hospital in Newcastle, England on 16 December 2011 where the doctor recommended his medical repatriation for further management and treatment.

    Upon arrival in Manila on 19 December 2011, the seafarer was given medical attention by the company-designated physician. He was subjected to rigorous medical examinations, was prescribed medications and was put on therapy to address his condition. On 19 April 2012, the company-designated physician issued a medical opinion stating, among others, that the seafarer’s lumbar spondylosis will require further treatment. As such, he gave an interim assessment of Grade 8. Thereafter, the seafarer continuously received medical treatment from the company-designated physicians. However, on 8 May 2012, the seafarer filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits and asserted that his illness was a result of an accident that occurred while he was performing his duties as chief cook.

    Question:

    Will the complaint prosper?

    Answer:

    No. The complaint should be dismissed for lack of cause of action.

    Jurisprudence dictates that a seafarer may have basis to pursue an action for total and permanent disability benefits in any of the following conditions:

    • the company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment would address his temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of the period to 240 days;
    • 240 days had lapsed without any declaration as to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability being issued by the company-designated physician;
    • the company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case may be, but his physician of choice and the third doctor chosen under Section 20 (A) (3) of the Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships1Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2010 are of a contrary opinion;
    • the company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly with his employer, believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as well;
    • the company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading;
    • the company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable or work-related but his doctor-of-choice and the third doctor selected under Section 20 (A) (3) of the Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships2Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2010 found otherwise and declared him unfit to work;
    • the company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and
    • the company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of the said periods.3Emphasis supplied.

    In the present case the seafarer filed his complaint on 8 May 2012, or 141 days from his medical repatriation on 19 December 2011. It was premature for him to invoke his claim for permanent total disability benefits at this time. As such, the complaint should have been dismissed as the seafarer had no cause of action.

    Further Reading:

    • Torillos v. Eastgate Maritime Corp., G.R. Nos. 215904 & 216165, January 10, 2019.