GR 225995; (November, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 225995 November 20, 2017
TEODORO V. VENTURA, JR., Petitioner, vs. CREWTECH SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., RIZZOBOTTIGLIERI-DE CARLINI ARMATORI S.P.A., and/or ANGELITA ANCHETA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Teodoro Ventura Jr. was hired as Chief Cook. After a fit-to-work PEME, he boarded the vessel in October 2013. In April 2014, he experienced difficulty urinating with pain and was diagnosed in Singapore with prostatitis and declared unfit for duty. He was medically repatriated on May 1, 2014. The company-designated physician diagnosed him with Cystitis with Cystolithiases and Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH), opining these were not work-related, being due to genetic predisposition, diet, aging, and hormonal changes. Despite this, the company provided extensive treatment, including surgeries.
By October 8, 2014, within the 240-day period from repatriation, petitioner claimed the company physician ended his treatment despite his unresolved condition, which required an indwelling catheter. He then consulted an independent doctor, who declared him permanently disabled on October 20, 2014. He filed a complaint for total permanent disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, but the NLRC reversed and awarded benefits. The Court of Appeals reinstated the LA’s dismissal, ruling the illnesses were not work-related.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and awarded disability benefits. The legal logic proceeds from the procedural rules governing disability claims for seafarers. Under the POEA-SEC and relevant jurisprudence, a seafarer’s disability claim becomes vested if the company-designated physician fails to issue a final, definitive assessment on his fitness or disability within the 120 or 240-day periods from repatriation. Here, petitioner was repatriated on May 1, 2014. The company physician, despite ongoing treatment, did not issue a final assessment of fitness or permanent disability by the crucial date of October 20, 2014 (within the 240-day period), when the independent physician declared him permanently disabled. The Court found the company’s cessation of treatment and lack of a final assessment within the period rendered petitioner’s temporary total disability permanent by operation of law.
The Court clarified that the non-work-related nature of the illness, as argued by the respondents, does not bar the claim under these procedural circumstances. The failure of the company physician to comply with the mandatory period for assessment conclusively results in an entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits, regardless of the initial disputable presumption of work-relatedness. Thus, petitioner is entitled to the corresponding disability benefits.