Case Digest (G.R. No. 170706)
Facts:
This case involves Prudencio Caranto as the petitioner and Bergesen D.Y. Phils., Inc., along with Bergesen D.Y. ASA, as the respondents. Caranto was employed by the respondents on October 21, 1999, as a Chief Steward/Cook aboard the vessel "M/V Berge Hus," under a nine-month contract with a salary of $877.00 per month. It should be noted that he had previously signed three separate contracts with the respondents and was a member of the Associated Marine Officers’ and Seamen’s Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP), which had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the foreign principal.
Prior to his deployment, Caranto underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) indicating that he was fit for sea service but had "Class B diabetes mellitus controlled with medications." He departed for the vessel on December 11, 1999, but by December 18 of the same year, he began to feel unwell, suffering from severe headaches, fever, and dizziness. After receiving
Case Digest (G.R. No. 170706)
Facts:
- Employment and Pre-Deployment Medical Examination
- On October 21, 1999, petitioner Prudencio Caranto was hired by respondent Bergesen D.Y. Phils., Inc.—the local manning agent of Bergesen D.Y. ASA—to serve as Chief Steward/Cook aboard the vessel “M/V Berge Hus” for a nine‐month period at a monthly salary of US$877.00.
- Petitioner, already having entered into three separate employment contracts with the respondents, was a member of the Associated Marine Officers’ and Seamen’s Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP), which had a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the respondent’s foreign principal.
- Prior to deployment, petitioner underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) which indicated he was fit for sea service but noted “Class B diabetes mellitus controlled with medications.”
- Onboard Illness, Diagnosis, and Initial Medical Treatment
- Petitioner embarked on the vessel on December 11, 1999, and on December 18, 1999, he experienced a severe headache, fever, and dizziness while at sea.
- Medical attention on board included medication given by the Chief Mate; however, his condition did not improve.
- A medical doctor from Jivan Deep Hospital and Polyclinic in Jamnagar, India, examined petitioner and diagnosed him with diabetes mellitus and hypertension.
- Consequently, petitioner was signed off from the vessel and repatriated to the Philippines on December 25, 1999 for further medical treatment.
- Subsequent Medical Evaluations
- Upon repatriation, petitioner was referred on January 3, 2000, to Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz, the company-designated physician at Medical Center Manila.
- Dr. Cruz attended to petitioner on seven different occasions, prescribing appropriate laboratory tests and medications.
- On April 7, 2000, after observing normal laboratory results (including normal FBS and blood pressure of 130/70), Dr. Cruz declared petitioner fit to work, diagnosing him with controlled hypertension and diabetes mellitus.
- Despite this, respondents, acting on a request from petitioner’s counsel, required a second opinion.
- On June 22, 2000, respondents transmitted a fax instructing petitioner to consult Dr. Natalia G. Alegre of St. Luke’s Hospital.
- Petitioner was seen by Dr. Alegre on August 31, 2000, and was directed to undergo further laboratory examinations.
- Dr. Alegre’s Medical Report (dated September 7, 2000) showed:
- A chest x-ray with a normal-sized heart but laboratory findings such as an elevated FBS (236 mg/dl) and urinalysis showing +2 glucose.
- A 2D Echo revealing concentric left ventricular hypertrophy with diastolic dyskinesia, accompanied by hypertensive retinopathy (Gr. I-II).
- A diagnosis of hypertensive cardiovascular disease and poorly controlled non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus, with an opinion that petitioner was not fit for work and should be given a disability rating of Grade 12 (reflecting slight residual impairment of the heart and pancreas).
- Private Medical Opinion and Subsequent Proceedings
- On May 18, 2000, petitioner consulted his private physician, Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, who:
- Diagnosed him with essential hypertension and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus.
- Assessed petitioner’s condition as a partial permanent disability with an impediment Grade V (58.96%), noting his high risk for complications due to his age and health conditions.
- Petitioner filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA), seeking disability benefits, sickness allowance, reimbursement of medical expenses, damages, and attorney's fees.
- The LA, in a January 30, 2003 decision, found that petitioner was entitled to permanent medical unfitness benefits amounting to US$60,000.00 under the provisions of the CBA.
- Notably, the LA favored the independent assessment of Dr. Vicaldo over that of the company-designated Dr. Cruz.
- The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA decision on August 31, 2004.
- Respondents filed for reconsideration, which was denied on November 22, 2004.
- Dissatisfied with the NLRC’s ruling, respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
- On September 9, 2005, the CA reversed and set aside the NLRC’s decision, instead awarding permanent disability benefits based on Dr. Alegre’s report (US$5,225.00) along with attorney's fees.
- Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, contesting:
- The reversal of the LA ruling awarding US$60,000.00 under the CBA.
- The CA’s disregard for his independent physician’s (Dr. Vicaldo’s) assessment.
- The classification of his disability, arguing that based on precedent (Crystal Shipping Inc. v. Natividad), his disability should be viewed as total and permanent.
- Supreme Court Decision
- The Supreme Court reviewed the conflicting findings between the labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals.
- It assessed the evidentiary weight of the medical evaluations, comparing the detailed laboratory and clinical reports from Dr. Alegre with the more general assessment of Dr. Vicaldo.
- Concluding that Dr. Alegre’s report was better substantiated by diagnostic procedures and detailed treatment history, the Court found no reversible error in the CA’s decision.
- Ultimately, the petition for review on certiorari was denied, and the CA’s ruling, including the disability benefit computed on the basis of a Grade 12 assessment, was affirmed.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Labor Arbiter and NLRC decisions that favored awarding petitioner US$60,000.00 under the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement.
- Whether the CA improperly gave more weight to the company-designated physician’s (Dr. Alegre’s) assessment, despite petitioner’s independent physician (Dr. Vicaldo) granting a higher disability rating.
- Whether, even assuming the correctness of the company-designated physician’s opinion, petitioner’s disability should be considered total and permanent in accordance with precedents such as Crystal Shipping Inc. v. Natividad.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)