G.R. No. 172933 ; October 6, 2008
JESUS E. VERGARA, petitioner, vs. HAMMONIA MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and ATLANTIC MARINE LTD., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jesus E. Vergara was hired by respondent Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc. for its foreign principal, Atlantic Marine Ltd., on April 4, 2000, to work as a pumpman on board the vessel British Valour under a nine-month contract. In August 2000, while attending to a defective hydraulic valve, he experienced vision problems, seeing black dots and hairy figures, which was logged as “internal bleeding in the eye” or “glaucoma.” He was repatriated on September 5, 2000, for medical treatment. The company-designated physician, Dr. Robert D. Lim, referred him to an ophthalmologist who performed several procedures. On January 31, 2001, Dr. Lim, as Medical Coordinator, certified the petitioner fit to resume seafaring duties, and the petitioner executed a “certificate of fitness for work.” Subsequently, the petitioner sought opinions from two other physicians not designated by the company: Dr. Patrick Rey R. Echiverri, who opined he was not fit to work as a pumpman, and Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, who assessed him with a Grade X (20.15%) permanent partial disability and declared him unfit to work as a seaman. The petitioner demanded disability and sickness benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract and the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), but the respondents refused. He filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter, who ruled in his favor. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, dismissing the complaint on the ground that the petitioner had been declared fit for duty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner is entitled to permanent total disability benefits despite the company-designated physician’s certification that he was fit to work.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decisions of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the company-designated physician’s assessment, declaring the petitioner fit to work within the 120-day period from his repatriation (from September 5, 2000, to January 31, 2001), is controlling. The petitioner failed to comply with the conflict-resolution procedure under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, which requires that if a seafarer disagrees with the company doctor’s assessment, a third doctor agreed upon by both parties must be consulted, whose decision shall be final. By unilaterally seeking opinions from other doctors and not invoking the third-doctor referral process, the petitioner cannot now challenge the company-designated physician’s fit-to-work certification. The Court further ruled that the petitioner’s condition did not constitute permanent total disability, as he was certified fit for sea duty within the 120-day period, and his claim that he could no longer perform his specific job as a pumpman did not equate to being unfit for any seafaring work. The provisions of the CBA and the POEA contract were upheld, emphasizing the primacy of the company-designated physician’s assessment unless properly contested through the prescribed procedure.