G.R. No. 216795 - Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. vs. Alferos

Petitioners Maersk-Filipinas Crewing Inc. and A.P. Moller A/S employed respondent Edgar S. Alferos as an Able Seaman without interruption since 1995.
Petitioners redeployed respondent each time under a new contract after being subjected to Physical Employment Medical Examination (PEME) that repeatedly found him fit for work.
For the last employment contract, petitioners hired respondent on board the vessel M/S Laura Maersk with a basic salary of US$585.00/month for a period of six months commencing May 10, 2012.
After contract completion, the parties mutually extended respondent’s services because there was no person available to take over his position on board the vessel.

On December 20, 2012, respondent suddenly felt pain in his lower back and abdomen while performing his duty.
Respondent likewise experienced difficulty and pain when urinating.
Respondent reported his condition to his superior officer.
Respondent was brought to Dulsco Medical Clinic in Dubai, where the medical examination diagnosed his condition as “Dysuria, with loin pain and back pain.”
Respondent received treatment and was later discharged to return to the vessel.
Despite treatment in Dubai, respondent’s condition did not improve and became worse, leading to medical repatriation and disembarkation on January 12, 2013.

Petitioners’ company-designated physicians were Dr. Karen Frances Hao-Quan (Dr. Quan) and Dr. Robert D. Lim (Dr. Lim).
The medical reports state respondent complained of “pain in urination accompanied with urinary frequency and back discomfort since December 2012 on board the sea vessel” and had been diagnosed with dysuria with loin pain and back pain, with urinalysis showing red blood cells, and ultrasound showing focal cortical calcification of the right kidney and Grade 1 prostate hypertrophy.
Respondent was recommended to undergo CT Stonogram and was given medications.
Respondent was instructed to return on January 31, 2013 for re-evaluation; the impression was “Prostatitis rule out Urolithiasis.”
In the medical report dated January 31, 2013 prepared by Dr. Quan and Dr. Lim, the earlier impression was restated and respondent was asked to return on February 4, 2013.
In the follow-up medical reports dated February 4, 2013 and February 18, 2013, respondent was advised to continue medications.
In the medical report dated March 5, 2013, the company-designated physician pronounced respondent fit to resume sea duties as of that date, stating that his prostatitis had already been resolved.
On March 5, 2013, petitioners made respondent sign a document entitled “Certificate of Fitness to Work” with the company-designated physician as witness.

Respondent did not feel fit to resume sea duties despite the March 5, 2013 Certificate of Fitness to Work.
Respondent submitted himself for examination by another physician.
Records showed that on March 19, 2013, respondent sought further medical evaluation and management at Supercare Medical Services (Supercare), as reflected in the “Agreement to Proceed with Further Evaluation and Management” signed by him.
On further evaluation, respondent was diagnosed with kidney stones and vertigo.
Respondent was referred to St. Luke’s Medical Center on April 29, 2013, where he was diagnosed with nephrolithiasis by Dr. Jaime C. Balingit (Dr. Balingit).
Respondent was further referred to Dr. Manuel C. Jacinto (Dr. Jacinto) for further examination.
Dr. Jacinto diagnosed respondent with nephrolithiasis, diabetic nephropathy, osteoarthritis, lumbosacral spine radiculopathy, and benign positional vertigo.
Dr. Jacinto issued a written medical assessment declaring respondent’s condition as rendering him physically unfit to return to work as a seafarer.

Respondent filed a complaint with the Arbitration Office of the NLRC to recover: permanent disability compensation pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), payment of sick wages for 120 days, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and other benefits under the law.

Whether NLRC and the CA erred in upholding an award of permanent total disability benefits despite the company-designated physician’s fit-to-work assessment

Whether NLRC gravely abused discretion by affirming LA based on alleged substantial evidence despite a fit-to-work declaration by the company-designated physician.

Whether respondent’s reliance on his chosen physician’s contrary findings violated the POEA-SEC procedure requiring a joint third physician in case of conflict

Whether respondent’s claim was premature for failure to give petitioners notice of intent to submit the conflicting assessment to a third physician jointly agreed upon...(Subscriber-Only)