G.R. No. 215111 - Abosta Shipmanagement Corp. vs. Delos Reyes

Ask AI

G.R. No. 215111: Abosta Shipmanagement Corp. vs. Delos Reyes

Getting related questions...
What do you want to know about the case?
Ask AI quickly gives answers based only on the current context to avoid mistakes. Always verify with the original text.

New Chat Started

Ask AI

Title Source: Supreme Court: Abosta Shipmanagement Corp. vs. Delos Reyes

Case: G.R. No. 215111

Decision Date: Jun 20, 2018

Seafarer declared fit to work by company doctor after hernia surgery; independent physician deemed him permanently unfit. SC ruled company doctor’s assessment prevails due to failure to refer to a third doctor, denying disability benefits.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 215111)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Parties and Applicable Law

Petitioners:

Abosta Shipmanagement Corporation (a duly licensed manning agency)
Panstar Shipping Co., Ltd. (a foreign principal agency based in Korea)
Gaudencio Morales, an officer of Abosta

Respondent:

Rodel D. Delos Reyes, employed as a bosun on board the vessel MV Stellar Daisy

Governing Agreement:

Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Standard Employment Contract (SEC)

Employment and Medical Background

Employment Details:

On March 30, 2010, respondent was employed by Abosta as a bosun for a nine-month period
Prior to boarding, respondent underwent a Pre-Employment Medical Examination and was declared fit to work

Onset of Medical Issues:

In July 2010, respondent experienced groin pain while on duty
Sought treatment in Korea and was diagnosed with Inguinal Hernia

Medical Interventions:

On August 1, 2010, respondent was repatriated and examined by the company-designated physician
On August 23, 2010, he underwent right inguinal herniorrhaphy with mesh imposition based on the company physician’s recommendation
On August 25, 2010, respondent was discharged and received two months’ sickness allowance
On September 2, 2010, respondent was declared fit to work by the same company-designated physician

Subsequent Medical Assessment and Filing of Complaint

Independent Medical Assessment:

On July 19, 2011, respondent consulted Dr. Li-Ann Lara-Orencia, an independent physician
Dr. Orencia assessed respondent as permanently unfit to resume work, citing a Grade 1 disability related to his hernia
Her Medical Certificate highlighted that hernia, deemed occupational in nature, may recur and therefore precluded the resumption of physically demanding duties

Filing of Complaint:

On July 20, 2011, respondent filed a complaint for Disability Benefits, Damages, and Attorney’s Fees

Administrative Proceedings

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter (December 29, 2011):

Dismissed respondent’s complaint for lack of merit
Favored the assessment of the company-designated physician based on prolonged treatment records over the independent physician’s subsequent evaluation

Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) (June 29, 2012):

Affirmed the dismissal by the Labor Arbiter
Ruled that respondent failed to obtain a third doctor’s opinion as mandated by the POEA-SEC when conflicting medical assessments were present

Court of Appeals (CA) Proceedings:

Respondent elevated the matter via a Petition for Certiorari to the CA
On March 26, 2014, the CA reversed the NLRC’s decision, declaring respondent entitled to total and permanent disability compensation and awarding US$60,000.00 plus 10% attorney’s fees
The CA gave credence to Dr. Orencia’s assessment, emphasizing the risk of recurrence and the unsuitability of respondent’s work as a bosun

Arguments Presented by the Parties

Petitioners’ Arguments:

Asserted that respondent failed to present credible evidence of suffering a Grade 1 disability
Contended that Dr. Orencia’s report was based on secondary studies rather than a direct diagnosis
Insisted that the company-designated physician’s judgment should be given more weight, given his direct monitoring and treatment of respondent
Challenged the award of attorney’s fees in absence of evidence of bad faith

Respondent’s Arguments:

Argued that the medical assessment of the company-designated physician was not conclusive due to a conflicting independent assessment
Maintained that disability should be assessed in terms of the inability to earn wages in his customary work
Claimed total disability on the ground that his condition prevented him from resuming his duties as a bosun
Defended the award of attorney’s fees on the basis of being compelled to litigate

Issues:

Medical Assessment Conflict

Whether the conflicting assessments between the company-designated physician and the independent physician (Dr. Orencia) warrant the need for a third doctor’s opinion as provided under the POEA-SEC
Whether the independent physician’s (Dr. Orencia’s) assessment could override the company-designated physician’s report without proper referral

Entitlement to Disability Benefits

Whether respondent’s medical condition constitutes total and permanent disability
Whether the respondent’s illness, its treatment, and timely declaration of fitness to work by the company-designated physician preclude entitlement to additional disability compensation
Whether the evidence supports respondent’s claim that he can no longer pursue his usual work as a bosun

Award of Attorney’s Fees

Whether there was a factual basis for awarding attorney’s fees against petitioners, particularly in the absence of exhibited bad faith
Whether the procedural misstep regarding the referral to a third doctor had an impact on the award of such fees

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

END