G.R. No. L-35726 - Social Security System vs. City of Bacolod

Ruthgar T. Parce had been employed as a seafarer by Magsaysay Maritime Agency, Inc. since 1992 under various employment contracts.
In September 2014, he was engaged as Senior Electrical Fitter for Magsaysay’s foreign principal, Princess Cruises Lines, Ltd., and embarked on the vessel “Golden Princess” to complete a 10‑month contract.
In November 2014, while performing his routine work onboard, Parce lifted heavy objects, which resulted in pain affecting his left shoulder.
After immediately consulting the ship doctor—who initially prescribed painkillers followed by stronger medicines—the pain persisted, prompting a declaration of unfitness and a recommendation for repatriation for further evaluation and treatment.

Parce was repatriated to the Philippines on December 9, 2014, and reported to the company-designated physician at Shiphealth, Inc. on December 11, 2014.
He underwent an extensive course of treatment including 36 sessions of physical therapy, periodic consultations, and assessments by the Orthopedic Surgery Service between December 2014 and April 2015.
Over a series of follow-ups, his left shoulder pain, measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), gradually decreased (from VAS 8/10 initially down to VAS 4/10) but persisted despite multiple sets of physical therapy, steroid injections, and an MRI that revealed findings compatible with a low-grade tear versus tendinosis.
On April 13, 2015, he was informed that maximum medical cure had been reached and that no further treatment would be provided.
A Final Medical Report dated April 15, 2015 issued by Shiphealth documented his condition, noting “maximally medically improved” and “case closed,” without giving a categorical declaration of fitness to return to work or a definitive disability rating.

Despite being told of maximum medical improvement, Parce’s pain persisted, leading him to seek a second opinion from his own physician (Dr. Manuel Fidel Magtira), who—based on an MRI and further evaluation—declared him permanently unfit for sea duties.
On July 2, 2015, Parce, through counsel, requested from Magsaysay a referral to a third doctor and copies of all his pertinent medical records because he had not been furnished with the final assessment of the company-designated physician.
Magsaysay’s response indicated that submission of a medical opinion from his doctor of choice was necessary to activate the conflict resolution mechanism.
In August 2015, Parce filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter seeking disability benefits, reimbursement for medical expenses, and attorney’s fees, asserting that the company’s final medical report was incomplete and not properly served to him.

The Labor Arbiter issued a decision on March 29, 2016, in favor of Parce, ruling that due to the absence of a definitive medical assessment by the company-designated physician within the prescribed timeframe (240 days from repatriation), his disability was deemed total and permanent by operation of law.
The NLRC, in its decision dated June 30, 2016, affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, rejecting Magsaysay’s contention regarding the forfeiture of Parce’s claim because he had complied with the referral requirement by his July 2, 2015 letter.
Magsaysay (and its foreign principal, Princess Cruises) elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on February 27, 2018, reversed the decisions of the labor tribunals based chiefly on Parce’s alleged failure to immediately protest the medical assessment and his delay in filing the complaint.
Parce’s subsequent motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in its August 8, 2018 Resolution.
On September 28, 2018, Parce filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s decision. The petition asserted that Magsaysay and Princess Cruises had not furnished him copies of his complete medical records and had failed to provide a categorical declaration regarding his fitness.

Is the Final Medical Report dated April 15, 2015, issued by the company-designated physician a complete, final, and categorical assessment of Parce’s fitness to return to sea duties?
Does the designation “maximally medically improved” without a clear declaration of fitness or a definitive disability rating satisfy the requirements set under the applicable provisions?

Should a medical opinion of the seafarer’s doctor of choice be considered a condition precedent to initiating a referral to a third doctor under the prevailing rules and the POEA-SEC guidelines?
Does the seafarer’s failure to promptly furnish such an opinion preclude his claim for total and permanent disability benefits?

Given the absence of a complete and definitive assessment by the company-designated physician, is Parce entitled to total and permanent disability benefits by operation of law?
How do the statutory and contractual provisions under the Labor Code and the 2010 POEA-SEC impact the determination of disability in this case?