Case Digest (G.R. No. 253480)
Facts:
Teodoro B. Bunayog v. Foscon Shipmanagement, Inc., Green Maritime Co., Ltd., Evelyn M. Defensor, G.R. No. 253480, April 25, 2023, the Supreme Court En Banc, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Teodoro B. Bunayog (petitioner) was employed by Foscon Shipmanagement, Inc. on behalf of its foreign principal Green Maritime Co., Ltd. as chief cook aboard MT Morning Breeze; Evelyn M. Defensor is named in her capacity as president of Foscon (respondents).While on board on July 31, 2016, petitioner developed cough, fever and dyspnea; he was diagnosed in Japan with left lung pneumonia and repatriated to the Philippines on August 4, 2016. Upon repatriation he was referred to a company‑designated physician, received treatment (including thoracenteses and serial ultrasounds) through September 28, 2016, and was declared fit to work on September 28, 2016. Petitioner sought a second opinion from his chosen physician, Dr. Noel C. Gaurano, who issued an undated medical certificate declaring petitioner unfit for sea duty due to pleural effusion; petitioner then sent a letter dated November 10, 2016 to respondent Evelyn informing her of that finding and expressing willingness to undergo a third‑doctor examination. Respondents did not reply.
Petitioner filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits (US$60,000), transportation expenses and attorney’s fees. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint (Decision dated June 30, 2017), giving credence to the company‑designated physician’s findings. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA (Decision dated September 29, 2017). Petitioner sought relief from the Court of Appeals (CA) by petition for certiorari; the CA denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC (Decision dated February 21, 2020; Resolution denying reconsideration dated...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should petitioner be awarded total and permanent disability benefits based on the conflicting medical findings and respondents’ failure to respond to his request for referral to a third doctor?
- Is petitioner entitled to attorney’s fees and moral damages as a consequence of r...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)