G.R. No. 201806 , August 14, 2017
NORTH SEA MARINE SERVICES CORPORATION, Ms. ROSALINDA CERDINA and/or CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES, Petitioners, vs. SANTIAGO S. ENRIQUEZ, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Santiago S. Enriquez was hired by petitioners as an Assistant Plumber. While on duty, he experienced severe back pains, leading to his medical repatriation on October 5, 2008. The company-designated physician, Dr. John Rabago, diagnosed Cervical Spondylosis and performed surgery. After treatment and therapy, Dr. Rabago declared Enriquez “fit to resume sea duties” on December 17, 2008, within the 120-day period from repatriation. Enriquez subsequently signed a Certificate of Fitness to Work. However, on February 25, 2009, he consulted an independent physician, Dr. Venancio Garduce, who certified him as unfit for sea duty with a Grade 3 disability.
Enriquez filed a complaint for permanent disability benefits under the ITF Cruise Ship CBA. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the claim, giving credence to the company doctor’s fit-to-work assessment and awarding only US$3,000 as financial assistance. The NLRC reversed, awarding full disability benefits, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The NLRC and CA gave greater weight to the private doctor’s opinion and noted petitioners’ failure to redeploy Enriquez.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Santiago S. Enriquez is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the CA and NLRC decisions and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. The legal logic centers on the primacy of the company-designated physician’s assessment under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), provided it is issued within the mandated periods and is not sufficiently rebutted.
The Court held that Dr. Rabago’s fit-to-work declaration, rendered within 120 days from repatriation, was timely and conclusive. The law grants this assessment finality if not contested through the proper arbitral mechanism. Enriquez’s act of securing a contrary opinion from his own doctor does not automatically overturn the company physician’s findings, especially absent proof that the latter’s assessment was arbitrary or unsupported. The mere fact that petitioners did not redeploy Enriquez does not equate to an admission of permanent disability; the binding assessment of fitness had already been issued.
Furthermore, the Court found no substantial evidence that the ITF CBA, which provided for higher benefits, was incorporated into Enriquez’s contract. His claim was thus governed by the POEA-SEC, under which the company-designated physician’s evaluation prevails. The award of US$3,000 as financial assistance by the Labor Arbiter was sustained as it had attained finality, petitioners not having appealed it. The decision underscores the principle that while labor contracts are construed in favor of labor, this cannot sanction the disregard of binding contractual procedures for assessing disability.