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.
Lawyer | Law Professor | Author
