Monday, April 25, 2022

Nazareno v. Maersk FIlipinas Crewing Inc., et al

Facts: Nazareno was hired by Maersk Filipinas Crewing Inc. (MCI) as Chief Officer for and in behalf of its foreign principal Elite Shipping A/S on board vessel M/V Artkis Hope for a period of 6 months.

The vessel was berthed at Port Belem, Brazil to load timber. While petitioner was checking the last bundle of timber to be loaded, he suddenly lost his balance and fell at a height of 2m. He landed on the timber and injured his right shoulder. Due to the pain he felt in his right shoulder, he was later examined at Philadelphia, U.S.A. and was considered not fit for work.  It was recommended that petitioner should be confined for thorough evaluation and further tests, such as MRI. Petitioner was also advised to see an Orthopedic Surgeon and/or a Neurologist. However, petitioner was not permitted to disembark as there was no one available to replace him. Petitioner was also brought at the Ulsan Hyundai Hospital at Ulsan, South Korea where he was treated and given medication for his “frozen right shoulder.” He was also advised to undergo physical therapy. Consequently, petitioner was declared unfit to work and was recommended to be signed off from duty. When petitioner was repatriated to Manila, he reported to MCI which referred him to MCM where he underwent PT program under Dr. Periquet 3 times a week. Dr. Campana issued a Medical Certificate stating that after after treatment and physical therapy, petitioner was fit for work. 


However, after almost 2 months of therapy, petitioner did not notice any improvement. He informed Dr. Periquet that when he was in Philadelphia, U.S.A., he was advised to consult a neurologist and undergo MRI. When Dr. Periquet ignored him, he consulted another doctor.  Petitioner underwent a series of treatment for his “frozen shoulder of the right arm” from Dr. Tan in his Chiropractic Clinic. Petitioner consulted Dr. Santiago, a Neurologist at MMC. Dr. Santiago concluded that petitioner will no longer be able to function as in his previous disease-free state and that his condition would hamper him from operating as chief officer of a ship. Petitioner was also examined by Dr. Vicaldo who diagnosed petitioner to be suffering from Parkinson’s disease and a frozen right shoulder (secondary), with an “Impediment Grade VII (41.8%). He concluded that petitioner is unfit to work as a seafarer.


Petitioner sought payment of his disability benefits and medical allowance from respondents, but was refused. He filed a complaint to the NLRC. The LA rendered a decision in favor of petitioner. Respondents appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC affirmed with modifications the decision of the LA, deleting the grant of sickness allowance. Respondents filed an MR but it was denied. Respondents filed before the CA which was granted. 


Issue: Whether the CA committed grave error in reversing and setting aside the decisions of both the LA a quo and the NLRC.


Held: Yes. In the case at bar, the CA relied on the provisions of Section 20(B) of the 1996 POEA-SEC and the ruling of this Court in German Marine Agencies, Inc. v NLRC, in concluding that the disability of a seafarer can only be determined by a company-designated physician and not the seafarer’s own doctors.


The rule is that under Section 20-B (3) of the 1996 POEA-SEC, it is mandatory for a claimant to be examined by a company-designated physician within three days from his repatriation. The unexplained omission of this requirement will bar the filing of a claim for disability benefits. However, in submitting himself to examination by the company-designated physician, a claimant does not automatically bind himself to the medical report issued by the company-designated physician; neither are the labor tribunals and the courts bound by said medical report. Its inherent merit will be weighed and duly considered. Moreover, the claimant may dispute the medical report issued by the company-designated physician by seasonably consulting another physician. The medical report issued by said physician will also be evaluated by the labor tribunal and the court based on its inherent merits.

No comments:

Post a Comment