Title
Seagull and Maritime Corporation vs. Dee
Case
G.R. No. 165156
Decision Date
Apr 2, 2007
Seafarer Jaycee Dee suffered a foot injury, deemed permanent and total by NLRC, despite company's Grade 11 rating. SC upheld US$60,000 award, affirming seafarers' right to second medical opinions.
permanent total disability benefits
seaman
foot injury
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 165156)

Employment, Injury, and Medical Course

Sometime in 1999, Jaycee Dee was employed as an able-bodied seaman by Seagiant ShipManagement Co. Ltd., assisted by Seagull Maritime Corporation as local manning agent. On May 3, 2000, while M/V Castor was berthed in Hamburg, Germany, a passing ship collided with it. The vessel’s portable gangway became jammed between the other ship’s walls and the shore rail, and then suddenly moved back to the berth. During these rapid movements, Dee’s left foot was pinned between two metal beams and was crushed. He first received initial treatment in a German hospital, after which he was repatriated to the Philippines for further medical care.

After repatriation, Jaycee Dee was examined and treated in multiple hospitals and clinics. He underwent two operations—one in May 2000 involving the application of a pin, and another in August 2000 for removal of the pin—and he completed eight months of physical therapy. Despite continued treatment, he still experienced severe pain and difficulty moving and weight-bearing on his left foot while ambulating.

NLRC Complaint and Petitioners’ Defenses

Because of the persistence of his condition, Jaycee Dee filed a complaint in the NLRC against petitioners for permanent total disability benefits amounting to US$60,000. Petitioners disputed liability and the amount. They asserted that Dee’s condition could still be remedied by a “triple arthrodesis” operation. They also contested the monetary award, relying on the company-designated physician, Dr. Albert M. Manalang, who assessed Dee’s injury as closest to “complete immobility of an ankle joint in normal position,” listed as Impediment Grade 11, which petitioners argued was compensable by US$7,465 under the POEA schedule.

Labor Arbiter Ruling: Award Based on Impediment Grade 11

On March 15, 2002, the labor arbiter ruled for petitioners. The labor arbiter granted a limited disability award of US$7,465.00 (or its peso equivalent) and denied other claims. The arbiter anchored the award on the POEA-proscribed “Schedule of Disability or Impediment for Injuries Suffered on Lower Extremities,” concluding that Dee’s condition was closest to the entry for complete immobility of an ankle joint in normal position assigned Grade 11. The labor arbiter emphasized that, despite the existence of other medical opinions, it gave weight only to Dr. Manalang’s impediment grading.

NLRC Ruling: Disability Treated as Permanent and Total

On appeal, the NLRC set aside the labor arbiter’s decision. It declared Dee’s disability permanent and total, awarding US$60,000.00 (or its peso equivalent). The NLRC likewise denied other claims for lack of merit.

In reaching this conclusion, the NLRC relied on medical findings from Dee’s doctors, especially Dr. Norberto Meriales of PGH/Medical Center Manila, who opined that even with additional treatment, Dee could no longer return to his previous work as a seaman. The NLRC also treated Dee’s refusal to undergo the proposed triple arthrodesis operation as non-defeating. It reasoned that the surgery was not a guarantee of relief or restoration of full mobility and seaman work capacity. It noted that the operation was intended primarily to relieve pain. Further medical support came from Dr. Rafael Bundoc, orthopedic surgeon at PGH, who stated that the results of surgery might not meet expectations, that fusion would compromise mobility of the hind and midfoot, and that Dee would not be able to attain the level of activity he could perform as a seaman. Dr. Bundoc also emphasized that Dee retained the decision-making choice regarding an elective corrective procedure.

On this basis, the NLRC ruled that Dee’s impairment rendered him incapable of performing the same kind of work or work of similar nature as his prior seafaring duties, warranting a permanent total disability award.

Court of Appeals Review Under Rule 65

Petitioners sought relief through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court of Appeals found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC and affirmed the NLRC decision. In a subsequent resolution dated August 20, 2004, it denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

Issues Raised by Petitioners

In the instant petition, petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the NLRC’s part in reversing the labor arbiter. They advanced three interrelated contentions: first, that the labor arbiter had adhered to a precedent-setting ruling in German Marine Agencies v. NLRC that the company-designated physician must assess the nature and extent of disability; second, that the NLRC applied the POEA provisions wrongly; and third, that Dee’s injury was confined only to his left foot, and thus his disability was not total but only partial.

Standard for Grave Abuse of Discretion and Deference to NLRC

The Court reiterated the high threshold for certiorari by reason of grave abuse of discretion, requiring that the alleged abuse be patent and gross, amounting to evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to act. It emphasized that abuse of discretion does not automatically follow when the NLRC reverses a labor arbiter’s decision. A mere variance between evidentiary assessments of two tribunals does not justify full factual review by the Court. The NLRC’s ruling, when it has substantial support in the record, is entitled to respect.

The Court of Appeals’ Observations on Substantial Support

The Court of Appeals had reasoned that the NLRC could not be accused of misapprehending facts, since it was undisputed that Dee sustained the injury while serving on the M/V Castor and that the injury was compensable. It further held that the NLRC’s conclusions were based on matters appearing in the record and through its own reasoning. The Court of Appeals pointed out that the NLRC credited the observations of Dr. Meriales that Dee could not perform or be hired for previous seafaring work, whether or not he underwent surgery. It also noted that the NLRC relied on Dr. Bundoc’s opinion that even surgery to lessen pain would not enable Dee to attain the activity level required of a seaman. Finally, it held that the NLRC did not misconstrue the legal principles it cited, including the rule that disability is assessed not only by medical significance but also by the real and actual effects of injury on the claimant’s opportunity to perform work and earn a living.

Reconciling German Marine Agencies and the Seafarer’s Right to a Second Opinion

Petitioners’ invocation of German Marine Agencies v. NLRC was rejected as unpersuasive. The Court clarified that German Marine Agencies did not hold that the company-designated physician’s assessment is final and conclusive on both the employer and the seafarer. While the company-designated physician must declare that the seafarer suffered a permanent disability during employment, the seafarer retained the right to seek a second opinion.

This clarification was tied directly to the POEA Standard Employment Contract provision on Section 20 regarding compensation and benefits for injury or illness. Under that clause, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance until the company-designated physician assesses the degree of permanent disability, subject to compliance requirements for post-employment examination. The contract expressly allows that if a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, the parties may refer the matter to a third doctor, whose decision is final and binding on both parties. The Court therefore held that it was not erroneous for the NLRC and the Court of Appeals to base their conclusions on Dee’s chosen physicians, Dr. Meriales and Dr. Bundoc, which conclusions were reached after consideration of Dr. Manalang’s findings.

The Court reproduced Dr. Manalang’s certificate, noting that it described Dee’s severe pain and difficulty in weight-bearing, and that Dee rejected the proposed triple arthrodesis. It further observed that Dr. Manalang’s findings did not materially diverge from the other doctors in terms of prognosis. Although Dr. Manalang gave a disability grade and amount, the medical findings reflected that surgery could not guarantee a return to prior strenuous seafaring work. The Court observed that Dr. Manalang’s conclusion about the possible outcomes could be understood to imply Dee would no longer perform strenuous activities like those required of a seaman.

Protection of Seamen and Liberal Construction of POEA Benefits

The Court stressed the imperative to protect labor, with specific regard to Filipino seamen due to the perilous nature of their work. It held that when serious doubt exists regarding the company-designated physician’s assessment of injury and corresponding impediment grade, resort to the prognosis of other comp

...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