G.R. No. 253480 , April 25, 2023
TEODORO B. BUNAYOG, PETITIONER, VS. FOSCON SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC., /GREEN MARITIME CO., LTD., /EVELYN M. DEFENSOR, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Teodoro B. Bunayog was employed as a chief cook by respondents. On July 31, 2016, while on board, he experienced cough, fever, and difficulty breathing. He was diagnosed with left lung pneumonia in Japan, declared unfit for duty, and repatriated on August 4, 2016. He was treated by company-designated physicians in the Philippines for pneumonia with recurrent pleural effusion. On September 28, 2016, a company-designated physician declared him fit to work. Petitioner then consulted his own physician, Dr. Noel C. Gaurano, who declared him unfit for sea duty due to pleural effusion. On November 10, 2016, petitioner informed respondent Evelyn M. Defensor of his doctor’s findings and his willingness to undergo another medical examination. Respondents did not respond. Petitioner filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, giving credence to the company-designated physician’s findings. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the dismissal, disregarding the assessment of petitioner’s physician for lacking specific medical tests and not being based on response to treatment.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not awarding petitioner total and permanent disability benefits and attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Decision and Resolution. The Court ruled that referral to a third doctor, as mandated under Section 20(A)(3) of the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), is a mandatory procedure when the seafarer’s chosen doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding. Petitioner, after receiving his chosen doctor’s contrary assessment, merely informed respondents and expressed willingness to undergo another exam but did not formally signify his intent to refer the conflicting findings to a third doctor or initiate the process for selecting one. His failure to comply with this mandatory procedure meant the company-designated physician’s fit-to-work assessment became final and binding. The Court found no clear bias, lack of scientific basis, or unsupported findings in the company doctor’s assessment to warrant an exception. Consequently, petitioner was not entitled to disability benefits or attorney’s fees.