Title
Rodelas vs. MST Marine Services
Case
G.R. No. 244423
Decision Date
Nov 4, 2020
Seafarer Rodelas, diagnosed with HIVD, refused surgery; employer terminated treatment, offered partial disability. Court awarded permanent total disability benefits, upheld right to refuse treatment and seek second opinion.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 244423)

Facts:

Roberto F. Rodelas, Jr. v. MST Marine Services (Phils.), Inc., G.R. No. 244423, November 04, 2020, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Roberto Rodelas, Jr. (a chief cook and AMOSUP member) sustained a back injury while aboard MV Sparta and was repatriated on May 24, 2014; respondent MST Marine Services (Phils.), Inc. is his employer. After initial treatment in South Korea, petitioner was examined by the company-designated physicians at Nolasco Medical Clinic and by an orthopaedic surgeon, who recommended spine surgery; the company-designated physician issued an interim Grade 11 disability assessment. Petitioner hesitated to consent to surgery, sought a second opinion from Dr. Renato Runas who declared him permanently unfit for sea duty, and continued attending company-sponsored sessions before respondent terminated his treatment on October 17, 2014 and allegedly offered a Grade 11 settlement which petitioner rejected.

Rodelas filed a Notice to Arbitrate (November 10, 2014). The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (NCMB) rendered a September 15, 2015 decision awarding permanent total disability benefits (US$95,949) plus 10% attorney’s fees, finding the seafarer unable to earn his usual work for more than 120 days and giving weight to Dr. Runas’ findings. MST Marine petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA). While a writ of execution issued and respondent paid an amount to satisfy the NCMB award pending appeal, the CA, in a February 20, 2018 Decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 142957), partially granted the petition and modified the award to permanent partial disability corresponding to Grade 11 (US$7,465), reasoning that the company-designated physician’s assessment was only interim and that the 120‑day period had been extended to 240 days because further treatment was needed; the CA denied...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • May the Supreme Court resolve factual issues in a Rule 45 petition in this case?
  • Did petitioner have a cause of action for disability benefits when he filed the notice to arbitrate?
  • Does a seafarer’s refusal to undergo recommended surgery disqualify him from claiming disability benefits?
  • Is petitioner entitled to permanent total disability...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.