G.R. No. 223246 - De Vera vs. United Philippine Lines, Inc.

On July 13, 2012, respondent United Philippine Lines, Inc. (UPLI), a local manning agency, employed petitioner Jan Frederick Pineda De Vera as a Bar Attendant on board the vessel “M/S Statendam” for a period of 10 months.
UPLI engaged De Vera on behalf of its foreign principal, Holland America Line Westour, Inc., and the employment contract was verified and approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) on the same day.

While on board, on December 15, 2012, De Vera complained of lower back pain and was placed under medication for two weeks, which provided temporary relief.
On January 18, 2013, De Vera underwent an MRI in Pompano Beach, Florida, which revealed “Moderate degenerative disc disease at L5-S1, with a 5 mm right paramedian disc protrusion causing mass effect on the descending S1 nerve root.”
A physical therapy prescription was issued on the same day by Dr. John P. Malloy, recommending the “McKenzie Program” along with range of motion, strengthening, core, and lumbar stabilization exercises.

Early repatriation was initiated when Holland America Line issued a Crew Home Referral Request on January 22, 2013, and De Vera was medically repatriated to Manila on February 3, 2013.
Upon arrival, De Vera was referred by UPLI to company-designated physicians at Shiphealth, Inc. in Ermita, Manila, for further evaluation.
Initial consultation occurred on February 13, 2013, with Dr. Abigael T. Agustin and Dr. Maria Gracia K. Gutay, who then referred him to orthopedic spine surgeon Dr. Adrian Catbagan on February 15, 2013.
Dr. Catbagan found no neurologic deficit, advised conservative management and rehabilitative treatment, and subsequently, De Vera was referred to a physiatrist for physical therapy.

De Vera completed a total of 12 physical therapy sessions (in two sets of six sessions), which improved his range of motion and eliminated symptoms.
Despite improvements, on March 11, 2013, De Vera received several payments including sickness allowance, travel expense reimbursement, and medical expense reimbursement from UPLI.
On April 2, 2013, the company-designated physicians issued their 5th and Final Medical Summary Report declaring that De Vera was “fit to work” based on normal physical examination and test results.
Unconvinced, De Vera filed a complaint on April 18, 2013 for total and permanent disability benefits along with other claims.
Shortly after, on April 22, 2013, he executed a Deed of Release and Quitclaim in favor of the respondents.
Later, on July 25, 2013, De Vera sought a second medical opinion from Dr. Cesar H. Garcia, an orthopedic surgeon, who concluded that De Vera was “unfit to work as a seaman in any capacity.”

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of De Vera, declaring him totally and permanently disabled and awarding him a US$60,000.00 disability benefit along with 10% attorney’s fees.

The NLRC reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision, emphasizing that De Vera was cleared by the company-designated physicians after 58 days of treatment and noting his execution of a quitclaim, which implied acceptance of the medical assessment.

In its August 20, 2015 Decision and subsequent February 5, 2016 Resolution, the CA denied De Vera’s petition, affirming the NLRC’s decision, on the ground that De Vera failed to observe the dispute resolution mechanism prescribed by Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s decision that reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling awarding disability benefits.
Whether De Vera is entitled to total and permanent disability compensation despite the “fit to work” assessment of the company-designated physicians.
Whether De Vera’s failure to secure an independent third medical opinion as required by Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC bar his claim.
Whether the execution and validity of the Deed of Release and Quitclaim, which reportedly implies acceptance of the company-designated physicians’ findings, was proper and binding.