G.R. No. 181180 ; August 15, 2012
PHILASIA SHIPPING AGENCY CORPORATION AND/OR INTERMODAL SHIPPING, INC., Petitioner, vs. ANDRES G. TOMACRUZ, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Andres Tomacruz, a seafarer, was hired by petitioners under a POEA-approved contract as Oiler 1 aboard M/V Saligna. During the contract term in September 2002, he experienced hematuria and was diagnosed in Japan with a kidney stone. He was repatriated and treated by the company-designated physician, Dr. Nicomedes Cruz, who eventually declared him “fit to work” on July 25, 2003. When Tomacruz sought re-employment, petitioners refused, citing insurance concerns over his prior medical treatment.
Tomacruz then consulted his own physician, Dr. Efren Vicaldo, who diagnosed him with bilateral nephrolithiasis and declared him permanently unfit for sea duty with a 41.80% disability rating, attributing the condition as work-aggravated. Tomacruz filed a complaint for disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC dismissed his claim, giving credence to the “fit to work” assessment of the company-designated physician over the contrary opinion of his personal doctor.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and awarding permanent total disability benefits to Tomacruz.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, awarding disability benefits to Tomacruz. The legal logic centered on the proper assessment of a seafarer’s disability under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC) and relevant jurisprudence. The Court clarified that a “fit to work” declaration by a company-designated physician is not conclusive if it contradicts the seafarer’s actual medical condition and capacity to resume his customary work.
The Court emphasized that disability should be understood not merely as a medical condition but as the loss or impairment of a seafarer’s capacity to perform his work. Despite the “fit to work” declaration, Tomacruz was refused re-hiring by petitioners themselves due to his medical history, proving he had, in fact, lost his capacity to be engaged as a seafarer. This refusal constituted a constructive dismissal and confirmed his permanent disability. Furthermore, the Court noted that the company doctor’s assessment was questionable as it was issued despite persistent findings of kidney stones, whereas the opinion of Tomacruz’s physician was detailed and justified. When seafarers are unable to perform their usual work for more than 120 days, as Tomacruz was, they are deemed permanently and totally disabled. Thus, he was entitled to the corresponding benefits under the POEA-SEC.