Case Digest (G.R. No. 215471)
Facts:
Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc., Marlow Navigation Co. Ltd./Cyprus, Ligaya C. Dela Cruz and Antonio Galvez, Jr. v. Braulio A. Osias, G.R. No. 215471, November 23, 2015, the Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the manning company and its officers; respondent Braulio A. Osias was employed as a chief cook under a nine‑month seafaring contract dated September 23, 2009. On February 12, 2010, while working, Osias fainted and was repatriated to the Philippines on February 15–16, 2010 for medical attention. The company‑designated physician, Dr. Michael Tom J. Arago of Manila Doctors Hospital, diagnosed degenerative osteoarthropathy of both knees and prescribed a regimen including ten physical‑therapy sessions; subsequent reports recorded left shoulder contusion and lumbar strain and recommended further therapy beginning April 5, 2010.
Osias attended four physical‑therapy sessions but then discontinued treatment without notice and returned only on May 14, 2010 after a stay in La Union; the company physician noted the prolonged absence. A final medical report and a certification of fitness to work were issued by Dr. Arago on July 14, 2010, declaring Osias fit to return to work. Independently, Osias procured a medical certificate from Dr. Li‑Ann Lara Orencia dated September 14, 2010, opining that his osteoarthritis prevented return to his former work.
Osias sued before the Labor Arbiter (LA) for permanent and total disability benefits (and other reliefs). The LA dismissed his claim in a decision dated May 2, 2011, giving weight to the company‑designated physician and finding that Osias had been remiss in treatment. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA in a February 28, 2012 Decision and denied reconsideration on April 30, 2012. Osias then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in a December 3, 2013 Decision, annulled and set aside the NLRC decision and awarded US$60,000 as total disability benefits plus attorney’s fees, on the ground that 147 days elapsed before the company physician declared fitness — exceeding the 120‑day rule. The CA denied reconsideration on No...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the lapse of 147 days before the company‑designated physician issued his assessment automatically entitled respondent to permanent and total disability benefits under the 120‑day rule?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit error by giving greater weight to the assessment of respondent’s personal physician over the company‑designated physician without compliance with the contractual procedure for resolving conflicting medical opinions?
- Was the CA’s award of attorney’s fee...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)