G.R. No. 201945 , September 21, 2015
MAERSK-FILIPINAS CREWING, INC./A.P. MOLLER A/S, PETITIONERS, VS. ROMMEL RENE O. JALECO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Rommel Rene O. Jaleco was hired by petitioner Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. on behalf of its foreign principal, A.P. Moller A/S, as an Able Bodied Seaman on December 4, 2006. He boarded the vessel “M/T Else Maersk” on January 16, 2007. In February 2007, he complained of intermittent pain on the left buttock radiating to the lower back and left groin. After examinations in Singapore and Dubai, where he was diagnosed with “suspected prolapsed intervertebral disc” and later “acute lumbago with left-sided sciatica r/o disc prolapsed,” he was declared unfit for duty and repatriated on May 1, 2007.
Upon repatriation, he was referred to the company-designated physician, Dr. Natalio Alegre II. He underwent various treatments, including medication, physical therapy, epidural steroid injection, and provocative discography. An MRI scan showed “beginning L5S1 disc herniation.” The company physician also had respondent undergo a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Test (MMPI-2), the results of which indicated possible malingering and exaggeration of symptoms. On September 4, 2007, Dr. Alegre assessed that if a disability were to be assessed at that time, it would be a grade 11 disability (slight rigidity or 1/3 loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk) under the POEA Contract.
Subsequently, respondent consulted independent physicians. Dr. Ramon Santos-Ocampo diagnosed him with “Sacro-iliitis, left and Bilateral facet joint arthropathy, L5-S1” in February 2008. In April 2008, Dr. Alan Leonardo R. Raymundo, an orthopedic surgeon, declared respondent “not fit for duty.” A second MRI in October 2009 showed a “Focal left of central disc protrusion mildly abutting the ipsilateral traversing nerve root, L5-S1.” Dr. Raymundo re-evaluated respondent and gave a disability rating of grade 8 (moderate rigidity or total loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk).
Respondent filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits, medical expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees before the Labor Arbiter (LA). The LA dismissed the complaint, finding that respondent failed to prove his illness was work-related and that he did not comply with the third-doctor referral process. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA, awarding respondent total and permanent disability benefits. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC decision, prompting petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s award of total and permanent disability benefits to respondent.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
The Court ruled that the company-designated physician failed to issue a final, definitive assessment of respondent’s fitness or disability within the 120-day period mandated by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and the Labor Code. The medical report dated September 4, 2007, which suggested a potential Grade 11 disability, was not a final assessment but a conditional statement (“If a disability is to be assessed now…”). No subsequent final assessment was issued by the company-designated physician after this date. Consequently, by operation of law, respondent’s temporary total disability lasting beyond 120 days ripened into a permanent total disability.
The Court further ruled that respondent’s non-referral to a third doctor, as provided under the POEA-SEC, was justified because there was no valid final assessment from the company-designated physician to disagree with. The duty to secure a third opinion arises only when there is a conflict between the assessments of the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s chosen physician. Since no final assessment was issued by the company doctor, this procedural step was not triggered.
The Court also found that respondent’s illness, a lumbar spine condition, was work-related. It was sustained during the term of his contract while performing his duties as a seaman, which involved strenuous activities. The company’s argument of malingering, based on the MMPI-2 test, was insufficient to overcome the presumption of work-relatedness and compensability under the POEA-SEC.
Therefore, respondent was deemed to have suffered permanent total disability and was entitled to the corresponding benefits.