G.R. No. 241067 . October 05, 2022
Raegar B. Ledesma, Petitioner, vs. C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., and/or Prestige Cruise Services, LLC/Prestige Cruise Holdings, Inc., and Geronimo F. Caidic, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Raegar B. Ledesma was hired as Chief Fireman. During his contract, he experienced symptoms including drowsiness and shortness of breath. He was diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, and later, diabetes mellitus. He was medically repatriated. The company-designated physician treated him and, after months, issued a final report stating he had reached maximum medical improvement. The physician opined his conditions were not work-related but were instead due to factors like heredity and obesity, assessing him with only a Grade 12 disability (slight). Dissatisfied, Ledesma consulted his own doctor, who declared him permanently unfit for sea duty. He thus claimed total and permanent disability benefits.
The parties failed to agree on a joint medical assessment. The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA) ruled in favor of Ledesma, awarding him disability benefits. The PVA gave credence to his personal physician’s opinion and found his illnesses work-related. The Court of Appeals reversed the PVA’s decision. It held that Ledesma failed to prove his illnesses were work-related or aggravated by his duties. The CA emphasized that the mere listing of an illness in the POEA-SEC is insufficient without proof of work-connection. Ledesma filed this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the PVA’s award of total and permanent disability benefits to the petitioner.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s ruling. The legal logic centers on the burden of proof and the proper procedural recourse in case of conflicting medical opinions. For a seafarer to claim compensation under the POEA-SEC, it is not enough that the illness is listed as an occupational disease. The seafarer must substantiate with substantial evidence that the illness is either work-related or aggravated by working conditions. Here, the company doctor’s detailed assessment, attributing the illnesses to non-work factors like genetics and lifestyle, remained uncontroverted by compelling evidence from Ledesma. His personal doctor’s contrary opinion created a conflict.
In such a conflict, the governing procedure under Section 20 of the POEA-SEC is for the parties to jointly refer the matter to a third doctor, whose decision shall be final and binding. This procedure is mandatory to resolve the conflict objectively. The seafarer has the right to request this referral, and if the employer refuses, the seafarer’s doctor’s opinion may prevail. However, the records show Ledesma did not formally request a third-doctor referral before the PVA. Consequently, the PVA erred in simply adopting his personal doctor’s findings without ensuring the conflict-resolution mechanism was exhausted. The PVA’s duty was to facilitate this process or, at minimum, base its decision on a clear evaluation of the evidence of work-connection, which was lacking. Therefore, with no substantial evidence proving work-relation and the mandatory third-doctor procedure unavailed, Ledesma’s claim for disability benefits must fail.