Facts:
Jesus E. Vergara, a member of
AMOSUP, was hired by
Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc. on April 4, 2000 to serve on board the vessel of foreign principal
Atlantic Marine Ltd. and departed the Philippines on April 15, 2000. In August 2000 he developed progressive visual loss while attending to a defective hydraulic valve and was diagnosed aboard as having internal bleeding in the eye or glaucoma; he was repatriated on September 5, 2000 for medical treatment and was examined by the company-designated physician,
Dr. Robert D. Lim, who referred him to an ophthalmologist and who later certified him fit to resume sea duty on January 31, 2001 after focal laser treatment and vitrectomy performed in November and December 2000 and a second laser session in January 2001; petitioner executed a certificate of fitness for work in the presence of Dr. Lim. Petitioner sought second and third opinions from non-company physicians,
Dr. Patrick Rey R. Echiverri and
Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, who opined that he was unfit for certain heavy or seafaring duties and that he had a Grade X (20.15%) permanent partial disability, and then demanded disability and sickness benefits under the
POEA Standard Employment Contract and the parties'
CBA. Petitioner filed NLRC NCR OFW Case No. (M) 01-050809-00; the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in his favor on January 14, 2003 ordering sickness allowance of US$ 2,568.00, disability benefits of US$ 60,000.00 and attorney's fees, but the
NLRC reversed on March 19, 2004 and denied reconsideration; the
Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s Rule 65 petition in a decision promulgated March 14, 2005 and denied reconsideration on June 7, 2005, prompting this Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court decided October 6, 2008.
Issues:
Was petitioner entitled to disability benefits when the company-designated physician declared him fit to resume sea duty within the extended medical treatment period? Did the initial one hundred twenty (120) days of temporary total disability automatically convert into permanent total disability under Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code and its implementing rules? Could the certification of fitness issued by the company-designated physician be disregarded because he was not an ophthalmologist and because petitioner’s private physicians disagreed?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: