G.R. No. 134940 - People vs. Melendres, Jr.

Petitioner Jakerson G. Gargallo was hired by respondent Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc. on behalf of Dohle Manning Agencies, Inc. as a wiper on board the vessel “MV WIDAR.”
He was engaged with a basic monthly salary of US$516.00 and underwent a pre-employment medical examination during which he was declared fit to work.
He embarked on the vessel on September 14, 2011.

On February 28, 2012, while lifting heavy loads of a lube oil drum, the vessel experienced a slight roll that caused the drum to swing uncontrollably.
This incident resulted in the petitioner losing his balance and falling on deck, with his left arm striking the floor and bearing his full weight.
On March 8, 2012, he was referred to a portside medical facility in Sauda, Norway, where he was diagnosed and treated for a broken left arm; findings included a “L72 break in the lower left arm” and a “radius shaft fracture of the left forearm” requiring corrective surgery.

After undergoing repatriation on March 11, 2012, petitioner was attended to by the company-designated physician, Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz, M.D., at a Manila hospital.
An x-ray confirmed a “comminuted displaced fracture of the proximal third of the left radius,” and petitioner subsequently underwent an Open Reduction and Internal Fixation surgery performed by an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Cirilo Tacata, M.D.
He was discharged on March 19, 2012, but continued to receive outpatient treatment from March 22, 2012, until September 21, 2012.

On September 21, 2012, the company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz, declared that the petitioner was “fit to work” during a regular follow-up examination.
Dissatisfied with this evaluation, petitioner sought a second opinion from his independent doctor, Dr. Cesar H. Garcia, whose report dated October 2, 2012 declared him unfit to work as a seaman.
This divergence of medical opinion set the stage for a dispute as to which medical opinion should determine his disability status.

While still undergoing treatment with Dr. Cruz, petitioner filed a complaint on July 20, 2012, before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), seeking permanent total disability benefits, compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees—relying on the provisions of an unsigned International Transport Workers’ Federation Standard Collective Agreement (ITF CBA).
Petitioner’s claim was premised on three main assertions:

He had become permanently unfit for further sea service despite surgery and continued treatment.
His independent doctor’s certification should prevail over the company-designated physician’s assessment.
His condition qualified under the Permanent Medical Unfitness Clause of the ITF CBA, entitling him to complete compensation (100%).

The continuous treatment and the findings of the company-designated physicians should be given more weight.
The procedure under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) for a joint appointment with a third doctor was not complied with.
The claim was premature because the petitioner was still within the 240-day treatment period.

The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, awarding permanent total disability benefits and attorney’s fees by giving credence to the independent doctor’s assessment.
The NLRC confirmed the award but reduced the disability benefits, still leaning toward the independent doctor’s findings.
The Court of Appeals (CA) later reversed the NLRC’s decision in its June 10, 2014 decision, ruling that:

The petitioner’s claim was premature since he was still undergoing treatment within the allowable 240-day period.
The company-designated physician’s assessment of “fit to work” should prevail over the independent physician’s findings.
The award for permanent total disability benefits was therefore properly denied.

The petitioner sought reconsideration of the CA ruling, but the resolution dated November 21, 2014 upheld the CA’s decision.

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the petitioner’s claim for permanent total disability benefits was premature and that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.

Was the filing of the claim for permanent total disability benefits premature given that the petitioner was still under medical treatment within the 240-day prescribed period?
Should the independent physician’s assessment prevail when it conflicted with the findings of the company-designated physician, given the prescribed conflict-resolution procedures under the applicable contracts?
Whether the petitioner’s failure to observe the joint appointment procedure for a third doctor under the POEA-SEC and the relevant Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) undermined his claim for permanent disability benefits.