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 engaged as a chief cook for nine months. While onboard, he experienced cough, fever, and difficulty breathing, was diagnosed with left lung pneumonia, and declared unfit for sea duty. Upon repatriation, the company-designated physician diagnosed him with “pneumonia with recurrent pleural effusion, left s/p thoracentesis, left” and, after about a month of treatment, declared him fit to work. Petitioner sought a second opinion from his own physician, who declared him unfit for sea duty due to pleural effusion. Petitioner informed respondents of this finding and his willingness to undergo a medical examination with a third doctor. Respondents did not respond to this request. Petitioner subsequently filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits.

ISSUE

The core legal issue, within the context of the Separate Concurring Opinion, concerns the consequences when a seafarer signifies intent to refer conflicting medical findings to a third doctor as mandated by the POEA-SEC, but the employer refuses to comply. Specifically, which party should bear the burden of this non-compliance, and how should the conflicting medical assessments be resolved in the absence of a third doctor’s opinion?

RULING

Justice Leonen, in his Separate Concurring Opinion, concurs in the result of dismissing the petition but provides a distinct rationale. He emphasizes that the mandatory referral to a third doctor under the POEA-SEC is triggered when there is a valid company assessment and a contrary assessment from the seafarer’s doctor. Upon the seafarer’s notification of disagreement and intent to refer, the burden shifts to the company to initiate the process of selecting a third doctor. If the company unjustifiably refuses to engage a third doctor, this non-compliance should be taken against it. In such a scenario, the medical evaluation that prevails should be the one grounded on scientific basis and the seafarer’s actual medical records. This approach aligns with the constitutional bias for labor and ensures that an employer’s refusal is not “rewarded.” However, in this specific case, while the company’s refusal was unjustified, the medical assessment of the seafarer’s chosen doctor was found to be lacking in scientific basis. When weighed against the findings of the company-designated doctor, the latter’s findings prevailed. Thus, Justice Leonen voted to dismiss the petition.