Facts:

The case before the Supreme Court involves Constancio Caderao Balatero (petitioner in G.R. No. 224532) who filed a petition against Senator Crewing (Manila), Inc., Aquanaut Shipmanagement Ltd., Rose Aaron, Carlos Bonoan, and MV MSC Flaminia (respondents in both petitions). The events unfolded after Balatero, who was employed as an able-bodied seaman and worked his way up to the position of 2nd Officer, boarded the MV MSC Flaminia on July 31, 2013. Despite being certified fit for work through a Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME), he suffered from severe chest pains and other cardiovascular symptoms while on board. After multiple incidents, he was diagnosed at Odense University Hospital in Denmark with serious health issues, including uncontrolled hypertension and unstable angina.

After being repatriated on January 5, 2014, he underwent subsequent medical evaluations, including a Coronary Angiogram and Angioplasty, where he was treated by various doctors, including company-

...

Facts:

Procedural Background

• Two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari were filed before the Supreme Court.
• One petition was filed by Constancio Caderao Balatero against Senator Crewing (Manila) Inc. (SCMI), Aquanaut Shipmanagement Ltd., Rose Aaron, Carlos Bonoan, and MV MSC Flaminia; the other by the respondents against Balatero.
• The petitions assailed both the Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution, which had reversed the Labor Arbiter (LA) and National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) awards.

Employment and Maritime Background

• Balatero was initially engaged by the respondents as an able-bodied seaman on April 12, 1997, gradually advancing from lower ranks to serve as 2nd Officer and later as 3rd Officer.
• SCMI functioned as a local manning agency with Aaron and Bonoan holding key managerial positions, while Aquanaut acted as one of its foreign principals.
• In July 2012, MV MSC Flaminia had suffered a fire; when Balatero boarded about one year later, residual effects such as odors and insect infestations were noted.

Medical Events and Initial Treatment

• On July 31, 2013, Balatero embarked on MV MSC Flaminia for a six‐month contract as 3rd Officer with a reduced salary out of loyalty to SCMI and Aquanaut.
• On December 22, 2013, Balatero experienced chest pains accompanied by palpitations and shortness of breath and was taken to Odense University Hospital in Denmark.
• He was diagnosed with elevated blood pressure, prescribed anti-hypertensive medication, and discharged; similar symptoms recurred on January 2, 2014, prompting a repeat hospital visit and eventual repatriation to Manila on January 5, 2014.

Subsequent Medical Assessments and Procedures

• Upon arrival in Manila, Balatero underwent further post-medical examination at SCMI’s office and was referred for specialized evaluation at Metropolitan Medical Center under the care of Dr. Richard Olalia.
• The Medical Report dated January 8, 2014, found Balatero suffering from “Uncontrolled Hypertension; Unstable Angina; To Consider Coronary Artery Disease [CAD]; Dyslipidemia” with multi-factorial etiologies deemed not work-related initially.
• Subsequent referral to Cardinal Santos Medical Center led to further evaluation by interventional cardiologist Dr. Roy Garrido, including a coronary angiogram and aortogram that confirmed severe and moderate coronary artery disease.
• On February 17, 2014, Balatero underwent a percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with the implantation of two stents and was prescribed a regimen of maintenance medicines.

Divergent Medical Opinions

• The respondents’ company-designated physicians (Dr. Olalia and Dr. Garrido) declared Balatero fit to work after treatment, assessing his disability as Grade 7 (partial and moderate residuals of disorder) under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC).
• Unconvinced of his fitness for sea duties, Balatero sought a second opinion from Dr. Li-Ann Lara-Orencia, an occupational doctor, who diagnosed him with “Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease” attributable in part to the stresses of his work.
• Dr. Lara-Orencia’s findings, based on a single consultation and interpretation of a series of medical tests and procedures, indicated that his condition rendered him unfit to return to sea duties given persistent symptoms and a continuous need for multiple maintenance drugs.

Labor Tribunal and Administrative Proceedings

• Balatero filed a complaint before the NLRC seeking permanent total disability compensation of US$60,000.00, along with claims for sickness allowance, damages, and 10% attorney’s fees.
• The LA rendered a decision on December 29, 2014, awarding Balatero the permanent total disability benefits along with attorney’s fees but dismissing moral and exemplary damages for lack of evidence of bad faith.
• The NLRC, in a subsequent resolution dated June 8, 2015, affirmed the LA’s decision, and later denied a motion for reconsideration by the respondents.
• The Court of Appeals (CA), however, on February 4, 2016, reversed the LA and NLRC rulings by directing that only US$20,900.00—corresponding to a Grade 7 Disability rating—be paid, and denied the award of attorney’s fees, as well as excluding corporate officers Aaron and Bonoan from joint liability.

Work-Relatedness Dispute

• Balatero contended that his cardiovascular conditions were either caused or significantly aggravated by the strenuous, unhealthy, and stressful working conditions at sea.
• The respondents countered that the illnesses, including dyslipidemia and CAD, were multi-factorial in origin involving non-work factors such as genetics, lifestyle, and other personal health risks.

Legislative and Contractual Framework

• Relevant statutory and contractual provisions were invoked, including Article 192 of the Labor Code regarding temporary total disability, and specific sections of the POEA-SEC which classify certain cardiovascular conditions as compensable if related to work.
• Balatero also cited applicable case law, including Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad and Carcedo v. Maine Marine Philippines, Inc., emphasizing that prolonged inability to perform sea duties should warrant permanent total disability benefits.

Issue:

Issues Raised by Balatero

• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in limiting Balatero’s award to only benefits corresponding to a Grade 7 Disability rating rather than granting full permanent total disability compensation as supported by his chosen doctor’s assessment.
• Whether the rejection of his claims for attorney’s fees, and moral and exemplary damages, was justified given the circumstances surrounding his prolonged disability and the respondents’ perceived bad faith.
• Whether corporate officers Aaron and Bonoan should be held solidarily liable for the disability compensation alongside SCMI and Aquanaut, under the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
• Whether Balatero’s motion for reconsideration (MR), which reiterated previous issues, should be dismissed for failing to raise any new substantive issues.

Issues Raised by the Respondents

• Whether Balatero’s illnesses and resultant disability are indeed work-related, given the multifactorial etiology as evidenced in the medical reports by Dr. Olalia and Dr. Garrido.
• Whether a disability grading made by a company-designated physician is determinative of both the compensability and the quantum of disability benefits regardless of any conflicting opinion from a seafarer’s personal physician.
• The proper interpretation of Section 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC regarding the referral to a third doctor when there is a variance between the assessments of the company-designated and the seafarer-appointed physicians.

Supporting Authorities and Interpretations

• Balatero referred to Article 192 of the Labor Code, the POEA-SEC provisions on disability, and previous rulings such as Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad and Carcedo v. Maine Marine Philippines, Inc. to support his entitlement to full benefits.
• The respondents relied on the established rule that the disability assessment by the company-appointed doctor, even if indicating only a partial disability, remains conclusive especially when the mandatory referral to a third doctor was not observed.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Binding Nature of the Company-Designated Physician’s Assessment

• The Court emphasized that under the 2010 POEA-SEC, in cases of conflicting medical opinions, the procedure mandates referral to a third doctor; failure to do so renders the company-designated doctor’s assessment binding.

• The lapse in obtaining a third opinion within the prescribed timeframe (beyond 120 days from repatriation) transformed a partial disability finding into a de facto perman

...continue reading