G.R. No. 241309 , November 11, 2021
Ruthgar T. Parce, Petitioner, vs. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, Princess Cruises Ltd. and/or Sorwin Joy G. Rivera, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ruthgar T. Parce, a seafarer employed by respondent Magsaysay Maritime Corporation for its foreign principal Princess Cruises Ltd., was repatriated on December 9, 2014, due to left shoulder pain incurred while lifting heavy objects onboard. He reported to the company-designated physician, Shiphealth, Inc., on December 11, 2014, and underwent 36 therapy sessions. On April 13, 2015, he was informed he had reached maximum medical cure. Shiphealth issued a Final Medical Report dated April 15, 2015, stating he was “maximally medically improved” and the case was closed. Princess Cruises subsequently issued a memorandum considering him fit without restrictions. Parce, still in pain, consulted his own physician, Dr. Manuel Fidel Magtira, who, after an MRI, declared him “permanently UNFIT in any capacity for further sea duties” in a Medical Report dated June 25, 2015. On July 2, 2015, Parce, through counsel, sent a letter to Magsaysay requesting referral to a third doctor and copies of his medical records. Magsaysay replied asking for a copy of the second medical opinion to study settlement. On August 20, 2015, Parce filed a complaint for disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter granted his claim, which the NLRC affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the company-designated physician issued a valid assessment within the 120/240-day period and that Parce failed to properly initiate the referral to a third doctor.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and in ruling that petitioner is not entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the NLRC Decision which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s award of permanent total disability benefits. The Court held that the company-designated physician’s assessment was not a definitive declaration of fitness to work. The phrase “maximally medically improved” is not equivalent to a declaration of fitness or an assessment of disability grading; it merely signifies the end of medical treatment. Consequently, the company-designated physician failed to issue a final and definitive assessment within the 120-day or extended 240-day period as required. Petitioner’s disability is therefore deemed total and permanent by operation of law. Furthermore, the Court ruled that petitioner complied with the procedure for referral to a third doctor. His letter of July 2, 2015, which explicitly stated his personal doctor’s finding of permanent unfitness and requested a third doctor referral, was a valid initiation of the process. Respondents’ failure to respond and instead ask for the medical report for possible settlement constituted a waiver of their right to choose a third doctor. Petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$60,000.00, plus attorney’s fees.