Title
Supreme Court
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing , Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 215551
Decision Date
Sep 16, 2015
Seafarer injured on duty, declared fit by company doctor but unfit by independent doctor; claim for permanent disability benefits denied as premature, awarded temporary disability benefits instead.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 215551)

Factual Background

Jakerson G. Gargallo was hired on a basic monthly salary of $516 and underwent a pre-employment medical examination, which deemed him fit for work. He began his deployment on September 14, 2011. An accident occurred on February 28, 2012, during which Gargallo fell, injuring his left arm when lifting a lube oil drum that swung as the vessel rolled slightly. After being diagnosed with a radius shaft fracture and requiring urgent surgery, he was repatriated on March 11, 2012, where he continued treatment under the company-designated physician, Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz.

Medical and Legal Proceedings

Gargallo's treatment included surgery and continued outpatient care until September 21, 2012, when he was declared "fit to work" by Dr. Cruz. Dissatisfied with this assessment, Gargallo sought a second opinion from Dr. Cesar H. Garcia, who declared him unfit to work at that time. On July 20, 2012, during his ongoing treatment, Gargallo filed a complaint seeking permanent total disability benefits, arguing that he was permanently unfit for service per the clauses of the unsigned International Transport Workers’ Federation Standard Collective Agreement.

Respondents' Counterarguments

Respondents contended that the assessments from the company-designated physicians should prevail due to their continuous monitoring and treatment of Gargallo's condition. They argued that filing the disability claim was premature as Gargallo was still undergoing treatment within the allowable 240-day rehabilitation period stipulated by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

Labor Arbiter's Decision

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Gargallo, awarding him permanent total disability benefits and attorney's fees, favoring the opinion of Dr. Garcia over Dr. Cruz's fit-to-work assessment. The Labor Arbiter reasoned that Gargallo's injury rendered him unfit for future seafaring roles.

NLRC's Findings

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision but reduced the benefits after considering the medical assessments and the provisions of the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). They found the reports from Dr. Cruz and Dr. Garcia both credible but noted discrepancies affecting the percentage of disability.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals (CA) later reversed the NLRC's decision, concluding that Gargallo's disability claim was premature given that he was still receiving treatment and no definitive assessments were made concerning his fitness or disability at the time of his complaint. The CA favored Dr. Cruz's ongoing oversight of Gargallo's condition and ruled that Gargallo failed to follow the proper procedures outlined in the POEA-SEC regarding dispute resolution when differing opinions arose about his medical fitness.

Supreme Court's Assessment

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the CA, affirming that the guidelines stipulated in both the POEA-SEC and the relevant CBA require the assessment of fitness or disability to be primarily conducted by the company-designated physician. The Court clarified that disability benefits involve not solely medical determinations but also compliance with the legal and contractual stipulations that govern such claims.

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.