G.R. No. 265454 , April 07, 2025
ADAN DE GUZMAN HISANZA, PETITIONER, VS. BRIGHT MARITIME CORPORATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Adan De Guzman Hisanza, a seafarer, was re-hired by respondent Bright Maritime Corporation in November 2016. He had a history of a back injury from a work-related accident in December 2015 but was certified fit for duty in September 2016. While working aboard the M/V Navios Etoile in May 2017, he experienced severe back pain, leading to his medical repatriation. The company-designated physicians provided an interim disability assessment (Grade 11) on December 5, 2017, after which they informed Hisanza they would no longer shoulder treatments. Hisanza then consulted his personal physician, Dr. Garduce, who declared him unfit for sea duty with a higher disability rating.
Hisanza filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits, damages, and attorney’s fees before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter awarded benefits based on Grade 11. The NLRC affirmed but deleted the sickness allowance. The Court of Appeals dismissed Hisanza’s petition, upholding the NLRC’s findings and emphasizing his failure to seek a third-doctor referral under the POEA-SEC.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC decision which awarded disability benefits based only on Grade 11, instead of declaring Hisanza permanently and totally disabled.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA decision, and declared Hisanza permanently and totally disabled. The legal logic centers on the application of the 120/240-day rule for disability assessment. The company physician issued only an interim assessment on the 120th day (December 5, 2017). Critically, no final assessment was issued by the 240th day from Hisanza’s repatriation (January 25, 2018). Under established jurisprudence, the failure of the company-designated physician to issue a final assessment within the 240-day period results in the conclusive presumption that the seafarer’s disability is total and permanent.
The Court rejected the argument that Hisanza’s failure to seek a third-doctor referral was fatal. The mandatory referral process under the POEA-SEC is triggered only upon the seafarer’s disagreement with a final assessment by the company physician. Since no final assessment was ever issued, the third-doctor referral mechanism was not activated. Consequently, Hisanza was not precluded from pursuing his claim. His continued inability to work as a seafarer, as certified by his personal doctor, coupled with the company’s failure to provide a final assessment within the statutory period, legally entitled him to permanent total disability benefits.