G.R. No. 210452 - People vs. Mamalumpon y Banez

On June 19, 2013, Ardel S. Garcia filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits and damages, which was docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. OFW (M)-06-08883-13.
Garcia was employed as a bosun by Career Philippines Shipmanagement Inc. through Verlou R. Carmelino, and assigned to the vessel Cape Bastia for its foreign employer, Columbia Shipmanagement.
His basic salary was USD690.00 with a tour of duty of nine months, plus an additional month upon mutual consent, beginning February 19, 2011.

Managing efficient deck operations and maintenance;
Operating and maintaining equipment such as paint airless sprayers and pneumatic and electric tools;
Supervising inventory and requisition of deck stores, paint, and anti-pollution materials;
Overseeing the preparation of cargo holds or tanks for loading, bilge cleaning, and safe securing of hatch covers, tanks, and cargo;
Reporting to the Chief Officer any issues concerning cargo gear, work problems, or crew concerns;
Ensuring safety and performance protocols, including overseeing anchor handling and rating crew members on operational safety and punctuality.

Garcia frequently worked 8 to 16 hours daily and was constantly on call even when off duty, exposing him to harsh conditions, pollutants, and chemicals, as well as the stresses of prolonged absence from family.

On November 19, 2011, while the vessel was at Lexum, Portugal, rough seas and stormy weather forced Garcia to secure shackles for cargo protection. During the operation, successive giant waves struck the vessel, causing him to be thrown against railings and fall into the sea.
Following the incident, Garcia experienced persistent pain in his right chest for more than one week, prompting medical evaluation once the vessel docked on November 23, 2011.
At Hospital Privado da Boa Nova in Portugal, a chest x-ray revealed a pneumothorax and possible lung contusion, after which a chest tube was inserted and subsequently removed on November 25, 2011.
Upon repatriation, Garcia was referred to the NGC Medical Clinic in Manila on December 2, 2011. The company-designated physician, Dr. Nicomedes Cruz, provided treatment and medication until April 2, 2012, after which his treatment was discontinued despite ongoing chest pains and breathing difficulties.
Seeking further clarification, Garcia consulted his personal physician, Dr. May S. Donato-Tan, who, after prolonged evaluation, declared Garcia permanently and totally disabled, asserting that his condition prevented him from resuming employment as a seafarer.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially dismissed Garcia’s claim on December 20, 2013, holding that the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) dictated that disability claims depend solely on the company-designated physician’s assessment.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA decision on April 16, 2014, finding that Garcia was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits of US$60,000.00 plus attorney’s fees, basing its ruling partly on the fact that Garcia’s own physician could also provide a basis for disability claims.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in its June 17, 2016 decision, affirmed with modifications the NLRC ruling, while also absolving Carmelino from personal liability, noting that despite the company-designated physician’s “fit to work” report, Garcia’s continued symptoms justified his claim for disability benefits.
The conflicting opinions between the company-designated physician and Garcia’s personal physician became central, with petitioners arguing that under the POEA-SEC, if there is a discrepancy, the seafarer must obtain a third opinion, failure of which would render the company-designated physician’s assessment final.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC Decision granting Garcia total and permanent disability benefits in light of:

The conflicting medical opinions between the company-designated physician and Garcia’s personal physician;
The prescribed procedure under the POEA-SEC for resolving such conflicts, particularly the mandatory resort to a third-doctor opinion; and
The implications of the extended period (beyond the initial 120-day period) for assessing Garcia’s medical condition.

Whether the inclusion of Carmelino as a party-respondent was proper given the contention that corporate officers should not be held personally liable for the company’s obligations regarding employee disability claims.