Case Digest (G.R. No. L-67835)
Facts:
Jan Frederick Pineda De Vera v. United Philippine Lines, Inc., Holland America Line Westour, Inc., and Denny Ricardo C. Escobar, G.R. No. 223246, June 26, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Jan Frederick Pineda De Vera was employed on July 13, 2012 by local manning agency United Philippine Lines, Inc. (UPLI) to serve as a bar attendant aboard the M/S Statendam under the foreign principal Holland America Line Westour, Inc. He joined the vessel in July 2012. While on board, he developed lower back pain on December 15, 2012, and was treated with medication. An MRI in the United States on January 18, 2013 showed moderate degenerative disc disease at L5-S1 with a 5 mm right paramedian disc protrusion affecting the S1 nerve root; he was referred to physical therapy and was medically repatriated to Manila on February 3, 2013.Upon repatriation, petitioner was referred to company-designated physicians at Shiphealth, Inc., who evaluated and treated him from February 13, 2013 and subsequently referred him to an orthopedic spine surgeon and a physiatrist. He completed 12 sessions of physical therapy, underwent a physical capacity evaluation on March 23, 2013 with normal findings, and the company-designated physicians issued a Final Medical Summary Report dated April 2, 2013 declaring that petitioner had “maximally medically improved,” that his condition was resolved, and that he was “fit to work.” Petitioner received sickness allowance and reimbursements in March 2013, and on April 22, 2013 executed a Deed of Release and Quitclaim for P40,808.16 after earlier receiving additional sickness allowance payments.
Despite the company physicians’ fit-to-work certificate, petitioner filed on April 18, 2013 a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits, among other reliefs. On July 25, 2013 petitioner consulted Dr. Cesar H. Garcia, who opined petitioner was unfit to work as a seaman, but this consultation occurred after the complaint had been filed. Labor Arbiter Virginia T. Luyas-Azarraga, in a November 28, 2013 decision, found petitioner totally and permanently disabled and awarded US$60,000 plus attorney’s fees.
Respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC, in a February 21, 2014 decision, reversed the Labor Arbiter, holding (inter alia) that the company-designated physicians’ findings — reached after repeated examinations — were more credible than the lone consultation with Dr. Garcia, and noting petitioner had executed a Deed of Release and Quitclaim which implied acceptance of the company doctors’ assessment. The NLRC denied reconsideration in a March 27, 2014 resolution.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in an August 20, 2015 decision and reaffirmed in a February 5, 2016 resolution, denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC, emphasizing petitioner’s failure to comply with Section 20(A)(3) of the 2...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s complaint for total and permanent disability premature for lack of cause of action at the time of filing?
- Did the company-designated physicians’ fit-to-work assessment properly prevail over petitioner’s physician absent referral to a jointly agreed third doctor, and was that assessment more credible than Dr. Garcia’s opinion?
- Was the Deed of Release and Quitclaim valid and did its execution preclude petitioner’s disability claim and e...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)