G.R. No. 244724 , October 23, 2023
ROQUE T. TABAOSARES, PETITIONER, VS. BARKO INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND/OR AZALEA U.T. CORP., AND/OR CAPTAIN FERNANDO J. ALANO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Roque T. Tabaosares was hired as a No. 1 oiler. On March 24, 2014, he slipped and fell onboard, injuring his left shoulder. He was medically repatriated and treated by the company-designated physician, Dr. Ryan Carlo R. Talosig. On July 8, 2014, Dr. Talosig issued an interim disability assessment of Grade 11 and indicated that further treatment would depend on re-evaluation after a second batch of physical therapy sessions. Petitioner completed his therapy but subsequently failed to report for his scheduled final re-evaluation on November 18, 2014, despite notice. Meanwhile, on September 17, 2014, during his treatment, petitioner consulted a personal physician who declared him unfit for work.
Due to his failure to report for re-evaluation, the company cancelled his illness benefits. Petitioner filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits. The Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator (OVA) ruled he was not entitled to total permanent disability benefits because the company-designated physician’s final assessment was hindered by petitioner’s own failure to comply with the treatment process. However, the OVA awarded him permanent partial disability benefits equivalent to Grade 11 based on the company’s willingness to honor the interim rating. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the OVA’s award of permanent partial disability benefits instead of total and permanent disability benefits.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the award of permanent partial disability benefits. The legal logic centers on the procedural requirement for a seafarer to complete the treatment process with the company-designated physician to be entitled to an assessment. Under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract and established jurisprudence, the company-designated physician has a period of up to 240 days to treat the seafarer and issue a final assessment. Here, the 240-day period started on March 29, 2014, and would have ended on November 24, 2014. The physician issued an interim assessment on July 8, 2014, and required further therapy and re-evaluation.
Crucially, petitioner unilaterally abandoned the treatment process by failing to appear for his final re-evaluation on November 18, 2014, which was within the 240-day period. This failure prevented the company doctor from issuing a definitive final assessment on whether his condition was total and permanent. A seafarer’s non-cooperation precludes a claim for total and permanent disability benefits, as the law cannot reward a party who fails to fulfill his contractual and procedural obligations. Consequently, the interim Grade 11 assessment stood as the proper basis for compensation. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the lower tribunals’ findings that petitioner’s own actions barred a higher disability rating.