G.R. No. 215551 . August 17, 2016.
JAKERSON G. GARGALLO, PETITIONER, VS. DOHLE SEAFRONT CREWING (MANILA), INC., DOHLE MANNING AGENCIES, INC., AND MR. MAYRONILO B. PADIZ, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Jakerson G. Gargallo filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits against respondents, claiming he suffered an injury while lifting heavy loads on board, rendering him permanently unfit for sea service despite surgery and treatment by company-designated physicians. He relied on a certification from his chosen physician. Respondents countered that the fit-to-work assessment of the company-designated physicians, who continuously treated him, should prevail, and that petitioner failed to comply with the conflict-resolution procedure under the POEA-SEC. They also argued the complaint was premature as petitioner was still undergoing treatment within the allowable 240-day period when he filed the complaint. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC granted petitioner’s claim, but the Court of Appeals dismissed it, ruling the filing was premature and crediting the company-designated physician’s assessment. The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated September 16, 2015, upheld the CA’s dismissal of the permanent total disability claim but ordered respondents Dohle Seafront and Dohle Manning to jointly and severally pay petitioner income benefits for 194 days of temporary total disability plus attorney’s fees, while absolving respondent Padiz from solidarity liability. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration.

ISSUE

The primary issues resolved were: (1) whether petitioner’s claim for permanent total disability benefits was valid; (2) whether the filing of the complaint was premature; (3) whether petitioner complied with the conflict-resolution procedure under the POEA-SEC and the CBA; and (4) whether respondent Padiz could be held jointly and solidarily liable for the monetary awards.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration seeking reinstatement of permanent total disability benefits. It affirmed that the complaint was prematurely filed on July 20, 2012, as petitioner was still under medical treatment by company-designated physicians within the allowable 240-day period, no medical assessment had been issued, and petitioner had not yet consulted his own doctor at that time. The Court also ruled that petitioner failed to comply with the mandated conflict-resolution procedure under the POEA-SEC and the CBA, which required the joint appointment of a third doctor in case of disagreement between the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s personal doctor. This non-compliance resulted in the affirmance of the fit-to-work certification of the company-designated physician.
However, the Court granted petitioner’s motion regarding the liability of respondent Padiz. Applying Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 , as amended, the Court held that corporate officers and directors of a recruitment/placement agency are jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation for money claims awarded to overseas Filipino workers. Thus, Padiz was held jointly and solidarily liable with Dohle Seafront and Dohle Manning for the payment of the income benefit for temporary total disability.
The Court denied respondents’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration seeking to delete the award of temporary total disability benefits. It ruled that the grant of income benefit for the 194-day period petitioner was under temporary total disability was proper, as it was based on the company-designated physician’s own fit-to-work assessment dated September 21, 2012. The Court clarified that this award was without prejudice to any claim petitioner may file with the Social Security System for Employees’ Compensation benefits, as the employer’s liability under the POEA-SEC is separate from the state insurance fund benefits under the Employees’ Compensation Act.