Title
Supreme Court
Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. vs. Gatchalian, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 207507
Decision Date
Feb 17, 2021
Seafarer declared fit-to-work within 120 days; failure to contest via third doctor rendered company assessment binding, denying disability claim.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 153267)

Incident Overview

On December 4, 2006, while onboard the M/V Independent Endeavor, Jose reported intense knee pain resulting from an accident earlier that year in August. He received medical attention in Belgium, where he was diagnosed with a torn medial meniscus and underwent surgery. Following his repatriation to the Philippines, further evaluations confirmed an improvement in his condition, ultimately resulting in a declaration of fitness to work by company-designated doctors in February 2007.

Claims for Disability Benefits

Two years later, on February 11, 2009, Jose filed a complaint for total disability benefits and other related claims, supported by a medical certificate from Dr. Angel Chua, who diagnosed him with traumatic arthritis and assessed him with permanent partial disability. This led to a chain of assessments through various labor tribunals.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

The Labor Arbiter dismissed Jose's complaint for lack of merit and awarded him financial assistance of PHP 150,000.00, noting that the assessments by the company-designated physician were more credible than Jose's independent physician, who had only seen him once.

NLRC Ruling

Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision but deleted the financial assistance award. Jose sought a reconsideration, which was denied, prompting him to file a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Jose, granting him permanent total disability benefits. The CA concluded that Jose's injury and subsequent condition were work-related, emphasizing the assessment of traumatic arthritis as an occupational ailment. The CA also addressed the petitioners' failure to reemploy Jose despite his being declared fit to work.

Petitioners' Arguments

Petitioners contested the CA’s decision, asserting that the CA erred in disregarding the fit-to-work assessment by their company-designated doctor. They argued that Jose's independent physician's assessment lacked credibility due to significant delays and did not comply with the protocol for contesting a fit-to-work declaration.

Issue for Resolution

The central issue was whether the CA erred in overturning the NLRC's findings that Jose was properly declared fit to work.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court found merit in the petitioners' arguments. It emphasized that the determination of a seafarer's fitness for duty relies on medical findings and contractual terms, particularly the provisions under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

Compliance with Reporting Requirements

The Court highlighted that Jose's failure to report to the company-designated physician within the stipulated period undermined his cl

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.