Title
Belmonte, Jr. vs. C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 209202
Decision Date
Nov 19, 2014
Seafarer injured on duty; company doctor declared him fit, private doctor unfit. SC upheld company doctor’s findings, denied disability claim due to procedural lapse.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 209202)

Facts:

Employment and Deployment:

  • Catalino B. Belmonte, Jr. (Belmonte) entered into a six-month employment contract with C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. (CFSCMI) as an A/B Cook on board the vessel M/T Summity, with a basic monthly salary of $698.00.
  • After passing the pre-employment medical examination and being declared fit for sea duty, he was deployed on September 14, 2008.

Accident and Injury:

  • On December 12, 2008, Belmonte sustained an injury during an emergency fire drill exercise when a metal ladder hit the right sternoclavicular part of his body.
  • He was brought to a clinic in France, where an x-ray revealed a fracture at the right sternoclavicular bone.
  • On December 22, 2008, Belmonte was repatriated to the Philippines.

Medical Treatment and Assessment:

  • Upon repatriation, Belmonte was referred to the company-designated physician, Dr. Antonio A. Pobre, who diagnosed him with a "Fracture, Non-Displaced, Sterno-Clavicular Junction, Right."
  • After several follow-ups and physical therapy sessions, Dr. Pobre declared Belmonte "FIT TO WORK" on February 17, 2009.

Filing of Complaint:

  • Almost two years later, on January 26, 2011, Belmonte filed a complaint for disability benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees against CFSCMI and its foreign principal, James Fisher (Guernsey) Ltd.
  • On March 14, 2011, Belmonte consulted a private doctor, Dr. Manuel C. Jacinto, Jr., who declared him "physically unfit to go back to work."

Labor Arbiter (LA) Decision:

  • The LA dismissed Belmonte’s complaint, ruling that the findings of the company-designated physician were more credible than those of the private doctor.

NLRC Decision:

  • The NLRC reversed the LA’s decision, granting Belmonte disability compensation, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, citing his non-deployment as an implied admission of permanent total disability.

Court of Appeals (CA) Decision:

  • The CA nullified the NLRC’s decision and reinstated the LA’s ruling, giving more weight to the findings of the company-designated physician over the private doctor’s assessment.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Credibility of Medical Assessments: The company-designated physician’s findings, based on months of monitoring and treatment, are more credible than the private doctor’s one-time evaluation.
  2. Procedure for Disagreement: Under Section 20(B) of the POEA-SEC, if there is a disagreement between the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s private doctor, the parties must jointly agree to refer the matter to a third doctor. Belmonte failed to follow this procedure.
  3. Non-Deployment as Proof of Disability: The non-deployment of a seafarer does not automatically imply permanent disability. The decision to rehire is within the employer’s prerogative.
  4. Burden of Proof: Belmonte failed to provide substantial evidence to support his claim for permanent total disability benefits. His private doctor’s certification lacked sufficient diagnostic tests and procedures to counter the company-designated physician’s findings.
  5. Liberal Construction of POEA-SEC: While the Court construes the POEA-SEC liberally in favor of seafarers, compensation cannot be awarded based on mere speculation or presumption.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, ruling that Belmonte is not entitled to permanent total disability benefits due to the lack of substantial evidence and failure to follow the proper procedure for resolving medical disagreements.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.