Title
Eyana vs. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 193468
Decision Date
Jan 28, 2015
Seafarer injured lifting heavy cargo; conflicting disability assessments led to labor dispute over compensation, resolved by Supreme Court under POEA SEC.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 193468)

Background of Employment and Injury

Eyana was employed by PTCI for a contract period of eight months with specific duties involving manual labor. His injury occurred on August 2, 2006, when lifting a heavy block of cheese resulted in severe back pain. Following hospitalization in Oslo and repatriation to the Philippines, he received treatment, including consultations with Dr. Natalio G. Alegre II, the company-designated physician, and Dr. Venancio P. Garduce, Jr., a private orthopedic specialist.

Medical Findings and Treatment History

Dr. Alegre's initial assessment indicated severe low back pain, and subsequent examinations revealed disc-related issues with nerve compression. Throughout his treatment, Eyana continued physical therapy but was hesitant to undergo surgery. Eventually, Dr. Alegre assigned Eyana a Disability Grade of Eight, while Dr. Garduce later assessed his condition as Grade One, declaring him unfit for sea duty.

Proceedings Before the Labor Arbiter and NLRC

Eyana filed a complaint for disability benefits before the NLRC after the LA awarded him US$80,000 as total and permanent disability benefits in light of the CBA provisions. The NLRC, however, reversed this decision, stating that Eyana's medical condition did not meet the threshold for total and permanent disability under the provisions of the POEA-SEC.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA upheld the NLRC decision, underscoring that a claimant must provide contrary medical evidence to contest a company-designated physician’s findings. It noted Eyana's delay in seeking a second opinion from Dr. Garduce and classified Dr. Alegre’s evaluations as having more probative weight due to his extensive examinations of Eyana.

Legal Issues Presented

The Supreme Court's review focused on two main issues: the applicability of the CBA provisions regarding compensation for loss of profession and the jurisprudential standard regarding total and permanent disability. Eyana contended that the provisions of the CBA entitled him to full compensation irrespective of the specific disability grade assigned.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It emphasized the need for substantial evidence to support claims related to disability benefits. Due to Eyana's inability to provide authenticated evidence supporting the CBA’s claims, the Court found that the relevant provisions

...continue reading

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