G.R. No. 237487 , June 27, 2018
ALDRINE B. ILUSTRICIMO, Petitioner vs. NYK-FIL SHIP MANAGEMENT, INC./INTERNATIONAL CRUISE SERVICES, LTD. and/or JOSEPHINE J. FRANCISCO, Respondents

FACTS

Petitioner Aldrine B. Ilustricimo, a Quarter Master, was medically repatriated in November 2014 after being diagnosed with bladder cancer. The company-designated physician, Dr. Nicomedes Cruz, issued a final disability assessment of Grade 7 (moderate residuals of an intra-abdominal organ) on June 30, 2015. Dissatisfied, petitioner consulted his own doctor, Dr. Richard Combe, who declared him unfit for work due to a need for ongoing chemotherapy and cystoscopy every three months. Through counsel, petitioner sent a letter to respondents on October 16, 2015, claiming total permanent disability benefits and attaching the second medical report, while expressing willingness to undergo another examination.
Respondents did not respond. Petitioner thus filed a complaint. The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (VA) awarded him total permanent disability benefits (Grade 1). The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, awarding only partial permanent disability benefits (Grade 7) as per the company doctor’s final assessment. The CA noted the absence of Dr. Combe’s medical certificate in the records and ruled petitioner failed to properly invoke the conflict-resolution procedure under the POEA-SEC by not seeking a third-doctor opinion.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding only partial permanent disability benefits instead of total permanent disability benefits.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the VA’s award of total permanent disability benefits. The legal logic centers on the proper application of the procedural mechanism for resolving conflicting medical assessments and the substantive principle of disability compensation.
Procedurally, the Court held that petitioner sufficiently complied with the steps to contest the company doctor’s assessment. His October 16, 2015 letter to respondents explicitly informed them of the conflicting fit-to-work assessment from his personal doctor, Dr. Combe, and attached the supporting report. This letter constituted a valid referral of the conflict to the employer. By utterly failing to respond or to initiate the referral to a third doctor, respondents waived their right to the third-doctor process. The burden to constitute the third-doctor panel shifts to the employer once the seafarer signifies his disagreement. Respondents’ inaction rendered the company doctor’s assessment not final and binding.
Substantively, the Court ruled that petitioner’s condition constituted total and permanent disability. The declaration of Dr. Combe that petitioner was “unfit to work” due to a required medical regimen every three months for an indefinite period means he can no longer perform his customary work as a seafarer. Total disability does not require absolute helplessness but the incapacity to perform one’s usual seafaring duties. The company doctor’s Grade 7 rating, issued without stating that petitioner could resume sea duty, was inconclusive. Given the incurable nature of his cancer requiring lifelong treatment, petitioner’s disability is permanent and total, entitling him to the maximum benefit under the CBA.