Title
Esteva vs. Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 225899
Decision Date
Jul 10, 2019
Seafarer Esteva, diagnosed with spinal issues, sought disability benefits after prolonged treatment. Supreme Court ruled in his favor, granting total permanent disability compensation, damages, and attorney’s fees due to delayed assessment by the company-designated physician.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 255466)

Medical History and Initial Diagnosis

Esteva's condition escalated, leading to a diagnosis of lumbar disc prolapse by Dr. W. Watson on October 5, 2012, confirming temporary total disability. Upon his return to the Philippines on October 7, 2012, Esteva underwent further evaluations. The company-designated physician, Dr. Mylene Cruz-Balbon, later issued various medical certificates indicating he suffered from Pott's disease and a Grade 8 disability rating. Esteva also sought evaluations from other physicians who deemed his disability as total and permanent.

Procedural History and Labor Arbiter's Decision

Esteva filed a complaint for total disability benefits, including substantial claims under the CBA. The Labor Arbiter granted Esteva's claims, giving more credence to independent medical evaluations over the company-designated physician's assessments. The Arbiter's decision awarded Esteva US$90,000 for disability compensation, supported by findings of the independent physicians.

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Ruling

The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's ruling, emphasizing that the company-designated physician’s assessment exceeded the acceptable period for temporary disability. This led to the conclusion that Esteva had been rendered permanently disabled—the decision indicated a clear threshold of incapacity beyond the stipulated maximum treatment duration of 240 days.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals deviated from the Labor Arbiter’s and NLRC’s conclusions, adopting the company-designated physician's assessment that rated Esteva as partially disabled. The Court ruled that Esteva failed to properly contest this assessment by not following the procedure to seek a third physician's opinion as prescribed in the POEA Standard Employment Contract, which led to an annulment of the previous awards.

Petitioner’s Arguments before the Supreme Court

Esteva petitioned the Supreme Court asserting that the referral to a third doctor, while a proper procedure, was not mandatory as he was not properly informed of the company-designated physician’s evaluation results timely. He claimed that respondents had not communicated their physician's assessments, depriving him of the right to contest them effectively. Furthermore, he contested the reliance the Court of Appeals placed on the company-designated physician’s assessment and argued that the lapse of time rendered his disability permanent.

Legal Framework and Evaluation

The legal framework for disability benefits under Philippine maritime law, particularly the POEA Standard Employment Contract, requires clear assessments of a seafarer's medical conditions. According to prevailing jurisprudence, the company-designated physician’s authority is foundational, but procedural rights, such as seeking a third physician, must be acknowledged to ensure fairness. The Court underscored that non-compliance with mandatory referral procedures can undermine a seafarer’s claims but that, in this case, the failure to disclose assessments was equally pivotal.

Supreme Court Findings and Conclusion

The Supreme Court evaluated the circumstances around the ti

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.