GR 202114; (November, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 202114 . November 09, 2016
ELMER A. APINES, PETITIONER, VS. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., AND/OR DANILO F. VENIDA, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Elmer A. Apines was hired as a bosun by respondents. He claimed that in September 2007, while on board, he slipped on iron ore pellets, causing his left knee to hit a steel railing. He reported the incident and experienced pain, but his request for medical attention at the nearest port was unheeded. He was later examined by doctors in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, who noted knee pain and swelling, recommended an MRI scan, and diagnosed a ligament sprain and possible meniscal injury. Due to worsening pain, Apines was repatriated on February 7, 2008.
Upon repatriation, Apines reported to the manning agency and was referred to the company-designated physician. He underwent treatment and was eventually assessed with a Grade 10 disability (slight rigidity of the knee joint). Dissatisfied, he consulted his own physician, who declared him unfit for sea duty. Apines filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC, ordering Apines to return the benefits he had already received under the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Apines’ claim for total and permanent disability benefits.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic centers on Apines’ failure to comply with the mandatory conflict-resolution procedure under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). The POEA-SEC provides that if a seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, the seafarer must refer the conflict to a third, jointly-agreed-upon physician whose decision is final and binding.
Here, the company-designated physician issued a Grade 10 disability assessment. Apines sought a second opinion from his personal doctor, who declared him unfit. However, Apines unilaterally filed his complaint without first seeking a referral to a third doctor. By doing so, he violated the prescribed procedure. Consequently, the assessment of the company-designated physician, which was issued within the 120/240-day period, became final and binding. The law is clear that non-observance of this procedure renders the company doctor’s assessment conclusive. Therefore, Apines was only entitled to the disability benefits corresponding to a Grade 10 rating, not total and permanent disability benefits. His failure to observe the procedural step was fatal to his claim.