Case Digest (G.R. No. 201945)
Facts:
Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc./A.P. Moller A/S v. Rommel Rene O. Jaleco, G.R. No. 201945, September 21, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner employers Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. and its foreign principal A.P. Moller A/S employed respondent Rommel Rene O. Jaleco as an Able-Bodied Seaman aboard the M/T Else Maersk; respondent boarded on January 16, 2007. In February 2007 he began complaining of intermittent left buttock and lower back pain. Examinations abroad in April 2007 noted “suspected prolapsed intervertebral disc” and later “acute lumbago with left-sided sciatica r/o disc prolapsed,” and he was declared unfit for duty and repatriated May 1, 2007.
Upon repatriation respondent was treated by the company-designated physician, Dr. Natalio Alegre II, who monitored him through May–September 2007. Dr. Alegre ordered an EMG-NCV, provocative discography and a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2). The discography showed a mild posterior annular tear but the Interventional Radiology opinion found the pain not commensurate with the discography; the MMPI-2 yielded indicators of malingering and exaggeration of symptoms. In his September 4, 2007 progress report Dr. Alegre stated that, if a disability were assessed then, a Grade 11 rating would be obtained under the POEA contract (i.e., partial disability).
Respondent obtained independent opinions. Dr. Ramon Santos‑Ocampo recommended diagnostic/therapeutic injections, and Dr. Alan Raymundo (orthopedist) found pain relief after facet/sacroiliac injections but recurrence thereafter and declared respondent unfit for sea duty, assessing a Grade 6 disability (more severe impairment). A later MRI (October 2009) showed a focal L5‑S1 disc protrusion mildly abutting a traversing nerve root.
Respondent filed a complaint before the NLRC (originally before a Labor Arbiter) claiming illegal dismissal, unpaid wages and, chiefly, disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter granted permanent total disability benefits and 10% attorney’s fees, reasoning that respondent had been incapacitated for more than 120 days and the company physician had not made a categorical declaration of fitness. The NLRC reversed, holding that the company-designated physician’s Grade 11 assessment should prevail (no permanent total disability) and deleted attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals (CA), on petition, reversed the NLRC and awarded US$60,000 as total pe...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in awarding permanent total disability benefits to respondent despite the company‑designated physician’s assessment and respondent’s failure to invoke the POEA third‑doctor procedure?
- Did the Court of Appeals have legal and factual basis to award attorney’...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)