G.R. No. 91180 October 11, 1990
GRF SHIPPING AGENCY, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION AND LIBRADO V. VARGAS, respondents.

FACTS

Librado Vargas was employed as a third engineer by GRF Shipping Agency, Inc. on board the M/V ‘Barbara Morgan.’ On February 14, 1987, while performing a strenuous task calibrating the ship’s engine, he experienced severe pain in the area of a previous hernia operation. A Tunisian doctor examined him, diagnosed a hernia, and recommended immediate repatriation for further treatment. The recruiter’s representative, Benjamin Sabat, was notified and brought Vargas for a second examination with the same doctor, who reaffirmed the diagnosis and recommendation. Despite this medical advice, Sabat initially wanted Vargas to continue working until the ship reached Greece, citing Tunisian legal restrictions, but Vargas was eventually allowed to be repatriated to the Philippines.
Upon arrival, the company’s physician, Dr. Gavino, treated Vargas and opined that his condition was a spermatic cord infection, not a hernia, and thus not a valid cause for repatriation. Consequently, GRF Shipping deducted from Vargas’s salary the amounts of P9,704.90 for medical expenses and P5,300.00 from his earlier salaries. Vargas filed a complaint with the POEA for illegal deductions and non-payment of wages, which ruled in his favor, ordering the reimbursement of the deducted amounts and payment of sickness wages and attorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed the POEA decision, prompting GRF Shipping to file this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the POEA’s finding that Vargas’s ailment was a hernia, warranting his repatriation and the corresponding benefits, rather than a spermatic cord infection as claimed by the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether Vargas suffered from a hernia or a spermatic cord infection is a factual question. Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality. In this case, the NLRC’s decision was based on the medical certificate issued by the impartial Tunisian doctor, who examined Vargas twice in the presence of the petitioner’s own representative. This objective evidence substantially supported the finding of a hernia.
The Court noted that the medical opinion of the company’s physician in Manila was self-serving, as it was rendered after the fact to justify the illegal salary deductions. Its probative value was inferior to the contemporaneous and unrefuted certification from the foreign doctor, which the petitioner’s agent did not challenge at the time it was issued. Therefore, the NLRC correctly upheld Vargas’s entitlement to the reimbursement of the illegally deducted amounts and the payment of sickness wages, as his repatriation was medically justified.