G.R. No. 184948 - Chong vs. Dela Cruz

Ramon S. Langam (respondent) was hired on May 10, 2016 as chief cook by Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. for its principal, V Ships UK Ltd./Southern Shipmanagement Co. S.A. (collectively, petitioners).
Prior to embarkation on the vessel "Cochrane," respondent underwent and passed the pre-employment medical examination, being declared fit for sea duty.

On January 2, 2017, while performing his duties in the vessel’s kitchen, respondent suffered an accident when hot cooking oil accidentally splashed and hit his right eye.
Reacting immediately, respondent washed his eye with running water and resumed his activities, though he later experienced persistent pain, swelling, and blurred vision.

The day after the accident, due to persistent discomfort and blurred vision, respondent first sought assistance from the ship doctor; however, the lack of proper medical equipment necessitated further medical attention.
He was brought to a hospital in Korea where the attending physician declared him unfit for duty to rule out serious conditions such as optic nerve neuritis and ischemic syndrome in the affected eye.
Subsequently, respondent was medically repatriated on January 5, 2017.

Upon his return, respondent reported to petitioners on January 9, 2017 and requested a post-medical evaluation, being referred to a company-designated physician at the Chinese Medical Hospital.
Based on the prognosis by Dr. Carter S. Rabo, respondent was told there was little likelihood of a full recovery of his vision, yet his treatment continued for a period longer than originally anticipated.
Dissatisfied with the information provided—particularly regarding the confidentiality of his final assessment—respondent sought independent opinions from Dr. Eileen Faye Enrique-Olanan and Dr. Michael Bravo, who both diagnosed him with optic atrophy and asserted his unfitness for sea duty.

Relying on the assessments from his physicians of choice, respondent demanded disability benefits and clarification regarding his medical condition.
Petitioners, invoking an overriding collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that restricted disability benefits only to work-related accidents, refused respondent’s requests, leading him to file a complaint before the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA).
The parties, failing to settle through conciliation, entered a submission agreement referring the dispute to the PVA.

In the PVA Decision dated June 5, 2018, the majority ruled in favor of respondent by ordering petitioners to pay permanent total disability benefits amounting to US$102,308.00 (later recalibrated) and attorney’s fees. The ruling stressed that petitioners failed to refer respondent for a third medical opinion in the face of conflicting reports.
The Court of Appeals (CA) later affirmed the PVA’s decision in its December 12, 2018 ruling, reinforcing the credibility of the findings by Dr. Enrique-Olanan and Dr. Bravo on respondent’s inability to perform his seafaring duties due to poor vision, and consequently, his entitlement to permanent disability benefits.
Petitioners’ requests for reconsideration were denied by a Resolution dated March 21, 2019.

Whether respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits or only to partial permanent disability benefits corresponding to the Grade 7 disability assessment made by the company-designated physician.
Whether the final medical assessment rendered by the company-designated physician, albeit issued within an extended period under the POEA-SEC guidelines, should control respondent’s disability benefits claim, notwithstanding the conflicting opinions of independent medical experts.
Whether respondent’s decision to obtain independent third-party medical opinions prior to the issuance of a definitive final certification from the company-designated physician conforms to the mandatory procedure for claiming disability benefits under the POEA-SEC.
Whether the petitioner’s claim for attorney’s fees is justified, particularly in light of the requirement to prove bad faith on the part of petitioners in denying permanent total disability benefits.