Case Digest (G.R. No. 194362)
Facts:
On February 12, 2007, Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. (now known as BSM Crew Service Centre Philippines, Inc.) and Dorchester Marine Ltd., Petitioners hired Eulogio V. Dumadag, Respondent as an Able Bodied Seaman for a four-month contract; he underwent pre-employment medicals and was declared fit but developed symptoms aboard and after disembarkation. Company-designated physicians at Metropolitan Medical Center declared him fit to resume sea duties as of November 6, 2007, the petitioners paid his medical expenses, and he was not rehired; Dumadag then consulted other doctors between December 2007 and April 2008 who certified him unfit and permanently disabled and he filed a claim for permanent total disability benefits.
The Labor Arbiter awarded Dumadag US$82,500.00 in permanent total disability benefits plus attorneys’ fees on February 27, 2009; the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed on July 30, 2009; the Court of Appeals denied relief on August 31, 2010 and denied reconsideration on November 2, 2010; the petitioners brought this petition for review under Rule 45.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion in awarding permanent total disability benefits based on the seafarer’s physicians over the company-designated physician?
- Does Dumadag’s failure to follow the third-doctor referral procedure in the POEA-SEC and the parties’ CBA bar his claim?
- Can the petitioners’ non-rehiring of Dumadag be treated as conclusive proof of his disability?
- Was the award of attorneys’ fees proper?
Ruling:
The Court GRANTED the petition, SET ASIDE the CA decision and resolution, and DISMISSED the complaint; costs were imposed on Eulogio V. Dumadag, Respondent. The Court held that the labor tribunals and the CA gravely abused their discretion by disregarding the contractual dispute-resolution procedure in the POEA-SEC and the CBA.
Accordingly, because Dumadag failed to refer conflicting medical assessments to a jointly agreed third doctor as required, the company-designated physician’s fit-to-work certification stood and the awards, including attorneys’ fees, were set aside.
Ratio:
The Court relied on the parties’ binding contractual instruments, namely the POEA-SEC (Section 20(B)(3)) and the applicable CBA, which mandate that where a seafarer’s doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician a jointly agreed third doctor’s decision is final and binding; the instruments are the law between the parties. In this case Dumadag preempted that procedure by filing suit without seeking the agreed third opinion, thereby breaching his contractual obligation and causing the non-referral.
The labor authorities’ reliance on the seafarer’s physicians was a grave abuse because those physicians saw the patient briefly, relied largely on prior company records, and Dumadag offered no evidence he pursued re-employment or that the petitioners refused to consider him; thus the company-designated physician’s certification must be upheld (with guidance from Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. Velasquez, HFS Philippines, Inc. v. Pilar, and Santiago v. Pacbasin Ship Management, Inc.).
Doctrine:
- The POEA-SEC and the parties’ CBA are binding between the seaman and employer and govern the procedure for resolving conflicting medical assessments.
- Where a seafarer’s doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician, the parties must refer the matter to a jointly agreed third doctor whose decision is final and binding.
- Failure by the seafarer to comply with the contractual third-doctor referral provision precludes judicial relief based on contrary medical opinions.
- Labor tribunals commit grave abuse of discretion when they ignore mandatory contractual procedures that are the law between the parties.