G.R. No. 234365 . July 06, 2022.
PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. ALLAN N. TENA-E, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Allan N. Tena-e was hired as a seafarer by petitioners. On October 5, 2014, while on duty, a turnbuckle fell on his right shoulder, causing a displaced clavicular fracture. He was medically repatriated on October 20, 2014. The company-designated physicians provided continuous treatment and rehabilitation. In a Medical Report dated March 16, 2015, they issued an interim disability assessment of Grade 12, noting the fracture was radiographically healed but that the patient still experienced pain and that a return to full capacity was projected 4 to 6 months post-trauma. They planned a re-evaluation in April 2015.
On March 26, 2015, Tena-e, through counsel, sent a letter to the company doctors inquiring if further treatment was needed beyond the 120-day period from his repatriation, which had lapsed. He received no response. Subsequently, on April 18 and 19, 2015, he consulted his own physicians, who declared him unfit for sea duty with a permanent disability. He then filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits, arguing that the company physicians failed to issue a final assessment within the 120/240-day periods, rendering his disability permanent and total.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Allan N. Tena-e is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.

RULING

No, the Supreme Court ruled he is entitled only to a Grade 12 partial permanent disability benefit. The legal logic centers on the proper application of the periods for disability assessment under the POEA-SEC and relevant jurisprudence. The Court clarified that the 120-day period for assessment is not an inflexible deadline but a general rule. The company-designated physician may extend this period up to 240 days if justified, provided a sufficient medical explanation is given. In this case, the March 16, 2015 report was issued 147 days from repatriation. Critically, this report was not a final assessment but an interim one, explicitly stating the need for further observation and a future re-evaluation to determine fitness for duty. This constituted a valid justification for extending the assessment period.
The Court found that Tena-e’s act of consulting his own doctors and filing a complaint shortly after this interim report, and before the scheduled April 2015 re-evaluation, constituted an abandonment of the treatment process. This premature action prevented the company-designated physicians from issuing a final, definitive assessment. Consequently, the interim Grade 12 assessment stands. Since a Grade 12 disability is explicitly classified as a partial permanent disability under the POEA-SEC, Tena-e is not entitled to compensation for total permanent disability. The award was thus modified to grant him the corresponding benefit for a Grade 12 disability, with legal interest.