G.R. No. 209907, June 23, 2021
Charlo P. Idul, Petitioner, vs. Alster Int’l Shipping Services, Inc., Johann Mkblumenthal GMBBH Reederei and Santiago D. Almodiel, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Charlo P. Idul was employed as a bosun by respondent Alster Int’l Shipping Services, Inc. for its principal, Johann Mkblumenthal GMBBH Reederei. On December 4, 2008, while working on board the vessel M/V IDA, Idul suffered a leg fracture when lashing wires broke and hit him. He was repatriated to the Philippines and referred to the company-designated physicians, Dr. Robert Lim and Dr. William Chuasuan Jr., for treatment and rehabilitation. On July 6, 2009, Dr. Chuasuan issued a medical report giving Idul a Grade 10 disability rating. Prior to this, on March 16, 2009, Idul consulted his personal physician, Dr. Venancio P. Garduce Jr., who, after a single consultation, assessed Idul as totally and permanently disabled. The company offered Idul $10,750.00 as disability benefits pursuant to the POEA-SEC Grade 10 rating, but Idul rejected it, insisting on full disability benefits of $60,000.00. Idul filed a complaint before the DOLE. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the company, upholding the Grade 10 assessment. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, declaring Idul permanently and totally disabled and awarding $60,000.00. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, giving credence to the company-designated physician’s assessment. Idul filed the present petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in giving credence to the company-designated physician’s assessment and finding petitioner not entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the company-designated physician’s assessment of a Grade 10 disability, issued within the 240-day period, was valid and binding. The Court emphasized that under the POEA-SEC, the company-designated physician is primarily tasked to assess the seafarer’s disability. If the seafarer disagrees with this assessment, the mandatory procedure is for the parties to jointly refer the matter to a third doctor whose decision shall be binding. The seafarer has the responsibility to actively request such referral. In this case, Idul failed to comply with this mandatory procedure; he merely sought a second opinion from his personal doctor but did not pursue the referral to a third doctor jointly agreed upon with the employer. Consequently, the assessment of the company-designated physician prevails. The Court found that the detailed assessment of Dr. Chuasuan, based on months of treatment and monitoring, bore more weight than the single-consultation assessment of Idul’s personal physician. Therefore, Idul was only entitled to disability benefits corresponding to a Grade 10 disability.
