Case Digest (G.R. No. 181180)
Facts:
Philasia Shipping Agency Corporation and Intermodal Shipping, Inc. engaged Andres G. Tomacruz as Oiler #1 on board the M/V Saligna under a POEA Contract of Employment effective January 9, 2002, after four prior contracts he had completed; he was required to obtain a fit-to-work rating before deployment. During the last contract, Tomacruz reported blood in his urine and was diagnosed in Japan with a right kidney stone; after repatriation on November 18, 2002, follow-up tests in the Philippines showed stones in both kidneys, and the company-designated physician eventually declared him fit to work on July 25, 2003 despite the continued diagnosis of kidney stones.After the employers refused to hire him for a sixth contract based on his medical history, Tomacruz obtained a medical opinion from his doctor of choice and filed a complaint for disability benefits and other claims before the NLRC (OFW Case No. (M) 03-11-2866-00). The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, and the NLRC a
Case Digest (G.R. No. 181180)
Facts:
- Parties and nature of employment
- Respondent Andres G. Tomacruz (Tomacruz) was a seafarer whose services were engaged by petitioner PHILASIA Shipping Agency Corporation (PHILASIA) on behalf of petitioner Intermodal Shipping, Inc.
- Tomacruz served as Oiler #1 on board the vessel M/V Saligna.
- The parties entered into a twelve-month POEA Contract of Employment on January 9, 2002.
- The January 9, 2002 contract was preceded by four similar contracts, which Tomacruz completed aboard different vessels.
- For all five contracts, Tomacruz underwent a pre-employment medical examination and obtained a fit to work rating prior to deployment.
- Medical history while under the last contract
- After a clean bill of health, Tomacruz boarded M/V Saligna on January 15, 2002 and performed his duties without incident.
- Sometime in September 2002, during the term of his last contract, Tomacruz noticed blood in his urine.
- Tomacruz reported this to the Ship Captain, who referred him to a doctor in Japan.
- Japan check-ups and ultrasounds revealed a stone in Tomacruz’s right kidney.
- Despite the diagnosis, no medical certificate was issued; thus, Tomacruz was allowed to continue working.
- Tomacruz was eventually repatriated to the Philippines and sent to Micah Medical Clinic & Diagnostic Laboratory.
- A November 19, 2002 KUB Ultrasound report from the clinic showed stones in both kidneys.
- Micah Medical Clinic referred Tomacruz to Dr. Nicomedes Cruz, the company-designated physician.
- On July 25, 2003, Dr. Cruz declared Tomacruz fit to work, despite findings that there were stones about 0.4 cm in size in both kidneys and the possibility of hematoma.
- Post-declaration events and competing medical opinions
- Tomacruz intended to secure his sixth contract, and he proceeded to petitioners’ office armed with the declaration that he was fit to work.
- PHILASIA informed Tomacruz that because of the huge amount spent on his treatment, their insurance company did not like his services anymore.
- Concerned about the veracity of his fit to work declaration, Tomacruz sought a second medical opinion from Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo.
- On September 9, 2003, Dr. Vicaldo issued a Medical Certificate finding:
- Nephrolithiasis, bilateral S/P ESWL
- Right S/P ESWL x1
- Left x S/P ESWL x3
- Impediment Grade VII (41.80%)
- The Medical Certificate was accompanied by a Justification of Impediment Grade VII (41.8%) stating that:
- Tomacruz was a known case of bilateral nephrolithiasis since 1999.
- In 1999, he underwent right nephrolithotomy at St. Luke’s Medical Center.
- In September 2002, he had gross hematuria and was evaluated in Japan, where renal ultrasound revealed a small right kidney stone.
- He had recurrent bilateral renal stones and underwent ESWL for the right kidney and ESWL three times for the left kidney.
- Latest ultrasound still revealed bilateral kidney stones, and creatinine was slightly elevated.
- He was now unfit to resume work as a seaman in any capacity.
- The illness was considered work-aggravated.
- He had to regularly monitor renal function status to avoid progression to renal failure.
- Worsening could require repeat ESWL procedures.
- Pain and secondary infection were common with renal stones and impaired quality of life.
- Administrative and adjudicative proceedings
- On November 3, 2003, Tomacruz filed a complaint for disability benefits, sickness wages, damages, and attorneys fees against the petitioners before the Quezon City Arbitration Branch of the NLRC, docketed as OFW Case No. (M) 03-11-2866-00.
- After pleadings, Labor Arbiter Virginia T. Luya-Azarraga dismissed the complaint in a Decision dated November 26, 2004.
- The Labor Arbiter ruled that Tomacruz was a contractual seafarer and employment was governed by the contract signed upon each hiring.
- The Labor Arbiter held that once seafarers’ employment was terminated by completion of contract or repatriation due to a medical reason or any other authorized cause under the POEA SEC, the employer had no obligation to re-contract the seafarer.
- On medical grounds, the Labor Arbiter noted that Tomacruz received extensive medical attention from the company-designated physician and was given medication from repatriation until he was declared fit to work.
- The Labor Arbiter concluded that the company-designated physician’s assessment should be more accurate than the subsequent second medical opinion which the Labor Arbiter found unsupported by sufficient evidence.
- Tomacruz appealed to the NLRC, arguing that the Labor Arbiter gravely erred in upholding the company-designated physician’s fit to work declaration over Tomacruz’s doctor of choice, whom Tomacruz claimed was better qualified to determine his health condition.
- On October 28, 2005, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter.
- The NLRC held that the opinion of the company-designated physician, being the one with sole accreditation by law to determine fitness or unfitness of a seafarer under the POEA SEC, should prevail over the second opinion.
- The NLRC relied on general evidentiary principles on expert opinion credibility when expert opinions differ.
- Tomacruz’s Motion for Reconsideration was dismissed by the NLRC on March 10, 2006 for lack of merit.
- Court of Appeals proceedings under Rule 65
- Tomacruz filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 94561, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
- The petition’s sole ground alleged that the NLRC denied disability benefits despite petitioners’ alleged grave abuse of discretion.
- Tomacruz alleged that the company-designated physician’s fit to work declaration was not worthy of belief because it was self-serving and biased.
- Tomacruz asserted that the declaration was not in accordance with an ultrasound conducted July 24, 2003, which contained findings showing unchanged lithiases (right mid-peri- calyceal and left lower calyceal lithiases measuring 0.4 cm) and mild left-sided ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural issue on Rule 65
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in granting Tomacruz’s Rule 65 petition on the theory that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion, and that the petition merely raised alleged errors of law and misappreciation of evidence.
- Main issue on entitlement to disability benefits
- Whether Tomacruz was entitled to disability benefits notwithstanding the company-designated physician’s declaration that he was fit to work.
- Whether the company-designated physician’s opinion should prevail over Tomacruz’s doctor of choice.
- Whether the Court of Appeals properly applied Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code and the 120-day/...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)