Title
Bunayog vs. Foscon Shipmanagement, Inc., Green Maritime Co., Ltd., Evelyn M. Defensor
Case
G.R. No. 253480
Decision Date
Apr 25, 2023
Seafarer Bunayog's disability claim denied after employer's doctor found him fit. Employer ignored seafarer's valid request for third doctor. Court ruled employer's doctor's findings credible due to lack of basis in seafarer’s doctor's report.
disability benefits
seafarer
third doctor referral

Case Summary (G.R. No. 253480)

Factual Background

Petitioner was employed as chief cook by Foscon on behalf of its foreign principal Green for a nine‑month contract aboard MT Morning Breeze. While at sea petitioner developed cough, fever and dyspnea and was treated in Japan for left lung pneumonia and declared unfit for sea duty. He was repatriated and referred to a company‑designated physician in the Philippines who diagnosed “pneumonia with recurrent pleural effusion, left s/p thoracentesis, left,” treated him through a series of interventions and ultimately declared him fit to work on September 28, 2016. Petitioner thereafter consulted his chosen physician, Dr. Noel C. Gaurano, who issued a certificate declaring him unfit for sea duty for pleural effusion. Petitioner communicated his doctor’s findings and his willingness to undergo another examination to respondents by letter dated November 10, 2016. Respondents did not reply. Petitioner filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$60,000, transportation expenses and attorney’s fees.

Labor Arbiter and NLRC Proceedings

The Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioner’s complaint on June 30, 2017, giving credence to the company‑designated physician’s findings as founded on sequential medical interventions and diagnostic tests rather than on the petitioner’s physician’s single, observational assessment. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on September 29, 2017, reiterating that appointment of a third doctor requires mutual agreement and that failure to secure a third doctor does not automatically render the seafarer’s physician’s opinion binding; the NLRC added that, in the absence of agreement, the case is to be resolved on its merits.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals, in its February 21, 2020 Decision, dismissed petitioner’s appeal and affirmed the Labor Arbiter and NLRC. The CA disregarded the medico‑legal assessment of petitioner’s chosen physician on the ground that it did not require petitioner to undergo diagnostic tests nor was it based on an articulated, specific study of petitioner’s response to treatment, whereas the company‑designated physician’s findings were shown to be the product of continuing treatment and diagnostic work‑ups.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner identified as principal issues whether the CA erred in denying total and permanent disability benefits and whether the CA erred in denying attorney’s fees and moral damages.

Parties’ Contentions on Review

Petitioner asserted entitlement to total and permanent disability compensation because he could no longer perform the duties of chief cook. Respondents maintained that petitioner was not entitled to disability compensation because the company‑designated physician had declared him fit, and that the company physician’s assessment should prevail over petitioner’s chosen physician since the latter examined petitioner only once and produced a conclusory certificate.

Supreme Court Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals, the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter in toto.

Legal Framework Governing Disability Claims of Seafarers

The Court emphasized that entitlement to disability benefits involves statutory law, contractual terms and medical findings. The applicable statutory and regulatory framework includes Articles 197–199 of the Labor Code and the implementing regulations. Contractually, the relevant terms are those of the POEA‑SEC (Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers, 2010). Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA‑SEC requires post‑employment examination by a company‑designated physician, permits the seafarer to obtain a second opinion, and prescribes referral to a jointly agreed third doctor whose decision is final and binding should the two doctors’ assessments conflict.

Mandatory Nature of the Third Doctor Referral and Prevailing Jurisprudence

The Court reiterated settled jurisprudence that referral to a third doctor is a mandatory mechanism to resolve divergent medical assessments where: (1) the company‑designated physician issued a valid and timely assessment and (2) the seafarer’s appointed doctor disagrees. Prior decisions cited include Transocean Ship Management (Phils.), Inc. v. Vedad, INC Navigation Co. Philippines, Inc. v. Rosales, and others establishing the general rule that absence of a third doctor referral ordinarily renders the company doctor’s assessment final and binding.

Exception Permitting Judicial Scrutiny of Medical Findings

The Court reiterated the exception articulated in Dionio v. Trans‑Global Maritime Agency, Inc. that the labor tribunals and courts may set aside the company‑designated physician’s findings and review the inherent merits of the competing medical opinions when the company doctor’s conclusions lack scientific basis, are unsupported by the medical records, or demonstrate clear bias in favor of the employer. Under that exception the tribunals must examine the totality of evidence.

Procedural Clarifications and Rules Adopted by the Court

The Court announced guidelines to govern third doctor referral requests. A valid seafarer request must be written and must attach, or at the very least indicate the contents of, the medical report or medical abstract of the seafarer’s physician; absent such disclosure the request may be treated as invalid. Upon receipt of a valid written request accompanied by the medical report, the employer must, within ten days, serve a written reply acceding to the referral and initiating the process. After an affirmative employer response, the parties shall have fifteen days to secure a mutually agreed third doctor and the third doctor shall have thirty days to submit his or her reassessment. If the employer ignores or refuses a valid request, that failure is a violation of the POEA‑SEC and the seafarer may file a complaint; during the subsequent Labor Arbiter mandatory conference the LA must give the parties the NLRC En Banc‑directed periods to secure a third doctor (fifteen days) and to obtain the third doctor’s reassessment (thirty days). If the employer’s refusal or failure to act prevents securing a third doctor despite these processes, the tribunals shall treat the seafarer’s physician’s findings as conclusive and binding between the parties unless those findings are tainted by bias or lack scientific support or are unsupported by medical records; if the seafarer is the party at fault for failing to comply with the directive, the company doctor’s findings shall be binding, subject to the same exception.

Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Considerations

The Court stressed that the seafarer bears the burden of proof on the degree of disability; burden of proof never shifts although the burden of evidence may. The exception permitting judicial scrutiny of a doctor’s findings does not shift the burden of proof; rather, it requires the tribunals and courts to assess the inherent merits of the medical evidence and to determine whether the seafarer has established entitlement by substantial evidence.

Application of Legal Principles to the Present Case

The Court found that petitioner duly signified his intention to refer the conflict to a third doctor and attached the medical report of Dr. Gaurano to his November 10, 2016 letter. Respondents failed to respond. The Court recognized that respondents’ inaction should ordinarily be taken against them and could have rendered Dr. Gaurano’s findings final and binding. The Court nevertheless examined D

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms