GR 184256; (January, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 184256 . January 18, 2017.
MAERSK FILIPINAS CREWING INC., and MAERSK CO. IOM LTD., Petitioners, vs. JOSELITO R. RAMOS, Respondent.
FACTS
Joselito Ramos was employed as an able-seaman by petitioners. On November 14, 2001, his left eye was injured by a screw while on board the vessel. He was repatriated and treated by the company-designated physician, who eventually declared him fit to work on January 7, 2004, after cataract surgery and correctional glasses provided a best corrected vision of 20/20 using both eyes. Ramos, however, sought a second opinion from his own doctor, who opined he could not be employed for work requiring good vision. He filed a complaint for total permanent disability benefits before the Labor Arbiter (LA). The LA dismissed the complaint for prematurity, citing the parties’ failure to jointly refer the conflicting medical assessments to a third doctor as stipulated in the POEA contract.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Joselito Ramos is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling granting disability benefits but deleting the awards for damages. The legal logic centers on the interpretation of the POEA Standard Employment Contract and the assessment of disability. The Court held that the company-designated physician’s fit-to-work declaration was not conclusive. The obligation to refer conflicting assessments to a third doctor is not an absolute prerequisite for the seafarer’s claim to prosper, especially when the employer unilaterally and prematurely terminates medical support. Here, petitioners paid Ramos a 120-day sickness allowance and effectively ceased medical assistance, compelling him to seek his own medical opinion. This constituted a breach of their duty to provide continuous medical care until a final assessment was made.
Consequently, Ramos was justified in pursuing his claim. The disability was assessed based on the Schedule of Disability in the POEA contract. His condition—a 20/70 vision in the injured left eye despite correction—constituted a Grade 10 disability (50% loss of vision of one eye), not total and permanent disability. The Court modified the award to the corresponding benefit for a Grade 10 impediment under the contract, amounting to 20.15% of US$50,000.00. Attorney’s fees were also awarded pursuant to the Labor Code, as Ramos was compelled to litigate to secure his rightful benefits.