G.R. No. 234013 - People vs. Valencia y Dizon

On July 8, 2014, Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTCI) hired Allan N. Tena-e as a seafarer on behalf of its foreign principal, Seaspan Crew Management Limited, under a nine‐month contract with a monthly salary of US$575.00.
Allan underwent his pre-employment medical examination and subsequently boarded the vessel M/V Mol Efficiency.

On October 5, 2014, while on cargo-watch duty, Allan was injured when a turnbuckle fell on his right shoulder.
After experiencing extreme pain and swelling, he reported the incident to the ship captain and was referred to the vessel’s medical staff.
On October 11, 2014, a Medical Report declared him unfit for sea duty due to a displaced right clavicular fracture.
On October 20, 2014, Allan was medically repatriated to the Philippines and was immediately referred to ShiptoShore Medical Assist and St. Luke’s Medical Center for further management.

On October 22, 2014, company-designated doctors, Dr. John Ericson T. SaAez and Dr. Marilar F. De Guzman, confirmed the diagnosis of a fractured and displaced right clavicle.
An orthopedic shoulder specialist was engaged to supervise Allan’s treatment.
A subsequent Medical Report on October 23, 2014 advised the use of a clavicular strap for two to three months, home exercises, and scheduled formal rehabilitation to begin on the third month.
Between November 2014 and March 2015, Allan underwent monthly therapy and rehabilitation with medical reports issued on November 17, December 2, January 12, February 5, and March 16, 2015.
The March 16, 2015 report provided an interim assessment of Disability Grade 12, noting improvement but persistent pain and limited range of motion, with a tentative re-evaluation scheduled for April 13, 2015.

On March 26, 2015, Allan, through counsel, sent a letter to Dr. SaAez querying whether additional treatment was required beyond the initial 120-day period given his persistent pain.
The letter was addressed to seek clarification from ShiptoShore before April 7, 2015, but no response was received.
On April 18, 2015, Allan sought a second opinion from his own physicians – Dr. Rogelio Catapang Jr. (Orthopedic Specialist) and Rehabilitation Medicine Expert Dr. Francis N. Pimentel – both of whom declared him unfit for sea duty, with Dr. Pimentel asserting a permanent disability.

On April 20, 2015, Allan initiated Single-Entry Approach (SEnA) proceedings before the NCR Arbitration Branch of the NLRC to claim permanent and total disability benefits.
On July 24, 2015, Allan filed a Complaint against petitioners PTCI and Carlos Salinas (representing PTCI), seeking disability benefits, unpaid sick wages, reimbursement of transportation and medical expenses, and damages with attorney’s fees.
During the preliminary conference, Allan requested the appointment of a third doctor, which the Labor Arbiter (LA) denied.
The petitioners argued that Allan abandoned his treatment by failing to appear for a follow-up check-up on April 13, 2015 and maintained that his complaint was prematurely filed since Allan was still under treatment.

The Labor Arbiter issued a December 28, 2015 Decision ruling in favor of Allan, stating that he did not abandon treatment and that the absence of a final company-assessed report after the 240-day period entitled him to total and permanent disability benefits, though his claim for damages was denied. Attorney’s fees were awarded since he was compelled to secure legal representation.
The NLRC, in its May 30, 2016 Decision, affirmed the LA’s ruling.
The Court of Appeals (CA) in its April 4, 2017 Decision, denied petitioners’ appeal, supporting the findings that Allan’s letter did not equate to abandonment since the term “tentative” on his re-evaluation meant the appointment was subject to confirmation, and emphasized his failure to appear for the scheduled check-up impeded a final disability assessment.

Petitioners, discontented with the CA’s ruling, elevated the matter by filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari aiming to annul the CA decision which had awarded Allan total and permanent disability benefits.
Key contentions by petitioners included the allegation of treatment abandonment and questioning of the award for attorney's fees.

Whether Allan is entitled to permanent total disability benefits given his failure to appear on the scheduled April 13, 2015 re-evaluation appointment.

Does the failure to attend the re-evaluation constitute abandonment of treatment as required by applicable POEA-SEC rules?
Should the employer be held liable for awarding total and permanent disability benefits when the final disability assessment was not rendered by the company-designated physician?

Whether the award of attorney’s fees in favor of Allan is justified given the circumstances of his treatment and compliance with reporting requirements.