Facts:

The case at hand involves Abosta Shipmanagement Corporation, Panstar Shipping Co., Ltd., and Gaudencio Morales as petitioners against Rodel D. Delos Reyes as respondent. Rodel Delos Reyes was hired by Abosta on March 30, 2010, as a bosun aboard the MV Stellar Daisy for a contract of nine months. Prior to boarding, he underwent a Pre-Employment Medical Examination and was certified fit for work. However, during his employment, specifically in July 2010, he experienced groin pain and was diagnosed with Inguinal Hernia after receiving treatment in Korea. On August 1, 2010, he was repatriated and subsequently treated by the company-designated physician. Following medical advice, he underwent surgery on August 23, 2010, and was released from the hospital two days later, receiving two months of sickness allowance. By September 2, 2010, he was declared fit to work by the company-designated physician.

Despite being declared fit, Delos Reyes consulted Dr. Li-Ann Lara-Orencia on July 19,

...

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 - Rodel D. Delos Reyes, employed as a bosun on board the vessel MV Stellar Daisy - 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 - In July 2010, respondent experienced groin pain while on duty - Sought treatment in Korea and was diagnosed with Inguinal Hernia - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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

Issue:

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)