G.R. No. 244098 , March 03, 2021
JEBSENS MARITIME, INC., SEA CHEFS CRUISES LTD./EFFEL T. SANTILLAN, PETITIONERS, VS. LORDELITO B. GUTIERREZ, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Lordelito B. Gutierrez (respondent) was hired as Third Cook by Jebsens Maritime, Inc. for its foreign principal, Sea Chefs Cruises Ltd. (petitioners). On June 19, 2014, while on board, he experienced severe back pain and was diagnosed with Disc Prolapse L4-L5, leading to his medical repatriation on July 2, 2014. The company-designated physician treated him and declared him “FIT TO WORK” on September 9, 2014. Respondent applied for re-engagement but failed the pre-employment medical examination due to a high probability of recurrence of his illness. He filed a complaint (First Case) for continuation of medical treatment and sickness allowance, which was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter (LA) because he presented no contrary medical opinion to refute the fit-to-work diagnosis. While the First Case was pending, respondent consulted his personal physician, Dr. Renato P. Runas, who declared him permanently unfit for sea duty. Respondent then filed a second complaint (Second Case) for total permanent disability benefits. The LA in the Second Case ruled in his favor, awarding disability benefits. The NLRC reversed the LA, dismissing the Second Case on the ground of res judicata, holding that the First Case had already sustained the company doctor’s findings. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC, reinstating the award of disability benefits, finding no res judicata.

ISSUE

Whether the CA committed reversible error in reversing the NLRC Decision and Resolution.

RULING

The Petition lacks merit. The CA correctly ruled that the Second Case is not barred by res judicata. The elements of res judicata are not present, particularly the identity of causes of action. The First Case was a claim for continuation of medical treatment and sickness allowance under Sections 20(A)(2) and (3) of the POEA-SEC. The Second Case was a claim for total permanent disability benefits under Section 20(A)(6) of the POEA-SEC. These are distinct causes of action. Furthermore, the cause of action for permanent disability benefits in the Second Case was not yet in existence when the First Case was filed, as the fit-to-work declaration was still recent and respondent had not yet obtained a contrary medical assessment from his personal physician. On the merits, respondent is entitled to total permanent disability benefits. The company-designated physician’s fit-to-work declaration was issued only 68 days from repatriation, which is within the 120/240-day period, but it was effectively overturned by subsequent events. Respondent’s failure in the PEME and the medical opinions of his personal physician and the third doctor (Dr. Jason Paul P. Santiago), who both found him unfit for his seafaring duties, demonstrate that his disability was permanent and total. The third doctor’s opinion, though obtained unilaterally by respondent after petitioners failed to cooperate in the selection, is admissible and persuasive. The petitioners are jointly and severally liable to pay respondent total permanent disability benefits of US$60,000.00 and attorney’s fees of US$6,000.00.