THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 228684, March 06, 2019 ]

EDMUND C. MAWANAY, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE
TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., RIZZO-BOTTIGLIERI - DE
CARLINI ARMATORISPA AND/OR CAPT. DANILO
SALASAN,*RESPONDENTS.

DECISION
REYES, A., JR., J.:

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside the Decision[2] dated June 8, 2016
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 143132, and its Resolution[3]
dated October 17, 2016, denying the motion for reconsideration thereof. The
assailed decision granted the petition for certiorari filed by Edmund C. Mawanay
(petitioner), annulled and set aside the Decision and Resolution, dated July 10,
2015 and September 21, 2015, respectively, of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), and reinstated the Decision dated February 27, 2015 issued
by the Labor Arbiter (LA).
The Antecedent Facts

The petitioner was hired by respondent Rizzo-Bottiglieri-De Carlini Armatorispa

through its local manning agency in the Philippines - respondent Philippine
Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTCI) on July 10, 2013.[4]

Under the employment contract, the petitioner was employed as an ordinary

seaman on board the ocean-going vessel Giovanni Battista Bottiglieri for a
period of eight (8) months which commenced on July 24, 2013, with a basic
monthly salary of US$430.00.[5]

On August 30, 2013, while removing rust at the ship's deck, the petitioner
experienced severe headache and dizziness. He brushed these aside thinking that
they were merely caused by the exhaustion of having to work continuously for
three days. The pain, however, persisted the whole day. The next day, while
performing his usual tasks at the deck, the petitioner collapsed after experiencing
shortness of breath and suffocation. The petitioner was then given first aid and
allowed to rest. The next day, the petitioner again lost consciousness while he was
returning the tools and equipment used in his work. With this, it was decided that
the petitioner was to be brought to a medical facility at the next port of
destination.[6]

On October 1, 2013, the vessel reached the port of Fujairah, United Arab
Emirates. The petitioner was then brought to the Fujairah Port Clinic where he
underwent laboratory scans and a CT scan of his brain, and was diagnosed to be
suffering from "chronic headache/sinusitis; increase intra-cranial pressure." The
petitioner was confined for three days and thereafter declared unfit for sea duty.
On October 6, 2013, the petitioner was medically repatriated to the Philippines. [7]

Upon his arrival, the petitioner immediately reported to PTCI, which then
referred him to the company's accredited physician for post-employment medical
examination. Due to his recurring headache, the petitioner was advised to consult
with an ENT specialist, and was found to have vertiginous migraine. He was
prescribed medications to manage his pain, and was told to return for another
check-up on October 18, 2013. As the petitioner's headache persisted, he was told
to undergo an MRI, which nonetheless yielded normal results. Despite oral
medications, the petitioner claimed that he remained to experience headache. He
was then referred to and seen by the company-designated neurologist on January
17, 2014 which found the petitioner to be suffering from cluster headache thereby
prescribing medications to alleviate pains and attacks.[8]

On January 21, 2014, the company-designated physician issued a medical report

reflecting the treatments the petitioner has undergone, his present medical
condition, and concluded on the basis thereof that his interim disability
assessment is Grade 10.[9]

Two medical reports by the company-designated physician followed. In the first

which was issued on February 19, 2014, the physician indicated the possibility
that the petitioner is feigning illness considering that all the diagnostic tests
results are normal. In this regard, the report stated that the petitioner may be
cleared during his next check-up, but emphasized that migraine is a chronic
disease that can be triggered by external stimuli. The final medical report on the
other hand, issued on March 5, 2014, stated that the petitioner is no longer
suffering from headache and as such, is cleared of his condition.[10]

On August 26, 2014, the petitioner filed a complaint for permanent and total
disability benefits before the NLRC. The petitioner submits that since the
company-designated physician stopped treatment after five sessions despite the
fact that he has yet recovered from illness, he was constrained to consult with
another doctor, Dr. May Donato-Tan (Dr. Donato-Tan). On August 18, 2014, on
the basis of the results of laboratory tests and examinations, Dr. Donato-Tan
issued a medical certificate declaring the petitioner permanently and totally
disable to perform his work as a seaman.[11]

On February 27, 2015, the LA rendered his Decision dismissing the petitioner's
claim for permanent and total disability benefits, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, [dismissing] the
instant complaint for utter lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.[12]
The LA held that there is no reason to deviate from the findings of the company-
designated physician that the petitioner is fit to work, especially as the latter's
diagnosis is a result of a series of medical examinations, tests, and treatments. [13]

The petitioner appealed to the NLRC, which rendered its Decision on July 10,
2015, reversing and setting aside the decision of the LA and finding the petitioner
to be entitled to permanent and total disability benefit, viz.:
WHEREFORE, finding the appeal to be meritorious, the judgment [a quo] is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a NEW ONE entered reading as follows:

1.) Respondents, in solidum shall pay in peso equivalent at time of payment

US$93,154.00 as disability benefits;

2.) 10% thereof as attorney's fees.

All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.[14]
In so ruling, the NLRC pointed out the glaring inconsistency in the findings of the
company-designated physician. The NLRC noted that while the company-
designated physician declared that the petitioner is free from illness, at the same
time, he recognized that migraine is chronic and can easily be triggered by
external stimuli.[15]

The NLRC also ruled that the petitioner is entitled to permanent and total
disability as he suffers from recurrent headache and dizziness for more than 120
days or exactly for a period of 10 months from his repatriation. [16]

The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the said decision, but the
same was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution dated September 21, 2015. [17]

The respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA alleging that the
NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the petitioner permanent
and total disability benefits and attorney's fees.

Ruling of the CA
On June 8, 2016, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision, [18] which granted
the petition for certiorari filed by the respondents, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby
GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated July 10, 2015 and the Resolution dated
September 21, 2015 of public respondent [NLRC], Fourth Division, are hereby
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the complaint for permanent and total
disability compensation filed by [the petitioner] is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.[19]
The CA held that the parties are bound by the provisions of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA
SEC) in that the company-designated physician's findings and assessment is
controlling on the matter of disability or fitness to work of a seafarer. [20]

At any rate, applying the ruling in the case of Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime
Services,[21] the CA adjudged the petitioner ineligible to permanent and total
disability claims. The CA emphasized that the mere lapse of the 120-day period
does not automatically entitle the petitioner to his claim particularly because he
requires further medical attention and the maximum 240-d,ay period from the
time of the petitioner's repatriation has not yet lapsed at the time the company-
designated physician issued a final assessment.[22]

Moreover, the CA declared that the NLRC erred in relying fully with the
company-designated physician's assessment, as it is settled that the latter's
findings are not binding on the labor tribunals and the courts. [23]

The petitioner sought a reconsideration of the Decision dated June 8, 2016, but
the CA denied it in its Resolution[24]dated September 21, 2015.

Issues

In the instant petition, the petitioner submits the following issues for this Court's
resolution:
WHETHER OR NOT THE CA ERRED IN THE FOLLOWING:

1. WHEN IT RULED THAT THE PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO

PERMANENT AND TOTAL
DISABILITY BENEFITS;
2. WHEN IT GAVE SOLE CREDENCE TO THE FINDINGS OF THE
PETITIONER'S PERSONAL PHYSICIAN[; and]
3. WHEN IT AWARDED ATTORNEY'S FEES TO THE PETITIONER. [25]
Ruling of the Court

The petitioner entreats that the Court adhere to the findings of his physician that
he is afflicted with cardio-vascular disease, a compensable illness under Section
32-A (11) of the POEA SEC. The petitioner submits that he has continuously
served PTCI for three years, thus, considering that the illness supervened in the
course of his employment, the same is work-related particularly considering the
working conditions under which the seaman is exposed to. [26]

In addition, the petitioner argues that labor tribunals are not bound by the
medical findings of the company-designated physician and that the seafarer is
not precluded from engaging the services of a physician of his own choice to
obtain a second medical opinion.[27] Claiming that the company-designated
physician abandoned treatment, the petitioner then invites the Court to give
more weight to his own physician's finding that he is suffering from cardio-
vascular disease which rendered him unable to work for more than 120 days, and
therefore, entitled to permanent total disability benefit. [28]

For their part, the respondents aver in their Comment that the petitioner was
diagnosed and treated for his recurrent headache and dizziness. [29] The
respondents narrated that the petitioner commenced his treatment with the
company-designated physician on October 8, 2013. On January 21, 2014, prior to
the expiration of the 120-day period, the company-designated physician issued a
medical report. Therein, the physician stated that the petitioner is still under the
care of the Neurologist but is expected to respond to his medications. In the
interim, the petitioner was given a disability rating of Grade 10. [30] Thereafter, the
petitioner was eventually cleared by the company-designated physician on March
5, 2014, the 148th day of treatment period. Having been cleared from illness
within the 240-day period, the petitioner is not entitled to disability claims. [31]

The petition is not meritorious.

Initially, it must be stated that the compensability of the petitioner's illness is a

factual issue that is beyond the province of a petition for review on certiorari.
Nonetheless, the conflicting rulings of the NLRC and the CA, present an
exception to the rule and justifies the Court's examination. [32]

Primarily, the mere lapse of 120 days with the petitioner remaining incapacitated
to resume his duties and earn a gainful occupation does not automatically entitle
him to permanent total disability benefits.

The Court, in the recent case of Oriental Shipmanagement Co., Inc. v. Ocangas,
[33]
 clarified that the 120-day rule applies only in cases where the complaint for
maritime disability compensation was filed prior to October 6, 2008.
Consequently, the succeeding claims, as in the case at bar where the complaint
was filed by the petitioner on August 26, 2014, are covered by the 240-day rule. [34]

The determination of the rights of a seafarer for disability compensation, when

covered by the 240-day rule, requires a balance in application by Philippine law,
the parties' contractual obligations under the POEA SEC and/or Collective
Bargaining Agreement, and the pertinent medical findings of the seafarer's
condition by his own physician and the company-designated physician. [35] The
interplay of these rules has been explained by the Court in Kestrel Shipping Co.
Inc., et al. v. Munar,[36] which succinctly sets forth the following procedure for
compliance under the 240-day rule:
[T]he seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the company-designated
physician within three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis and treatment. For the duration
of the treatment but in no case to exceed 120 days, the seaman is on temporary total
disability as he is totally unable to work. He receives his basic wage during this period
until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the
company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is defined under the
POEA [SEC] and by applicable Philippine laws. If the 120 days initial period is exceeded
and no such declaration is made because the seafarer requires further medical
attention, then the temporary total disability period may be extended up to a maximum
of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a
permanent partial or total disability already exists. The seaman may of course also be
declared fit to work at any time such declaration is justified by his medical condition. [37]
Proceeding from the foregoing ruling, with the declaration of the company-
designated physician that the petitioner is fit to work, under Section 20-13(3) of
the POEA SEC, the seafarer in case of disagreement, may then consult with his
own doctor. In the event of variance in the opinions of the company-designated
physician and the seafarer's doctor of choice, the matter may be referred to a
third doctor chosen by both parties whose diagnosis shall be final and binding. [38]

Tested against the attendant factual circumstances, the Court finds that in here,
the findings issued by the company-designated physician prevails for two
reasons: first, on account of the petitioner's breach of his contractual obligations
under the POEA SEC; and second, on the basis of the intrinsic merit and
reliability of the medical report issued.

Anent the first, it bears to recall that the petitioner was repatriated and initially
diagnosed by the company-designated physician on October 6, 2013. From then
on until January 20, 2014, the petitioner has been undergoing various tests,
consultations, and advised to take medications. On January 21, 2014, prior to the
lapse of the 120-day period, the company-designated physician issued a medical
report stating that the petitioner needs further medical treatment. On the same
report, the company-designated physician gave the petitioner's illness an interim
disability assessment of Grade 10. Finally, 150 days from the petitioner's
repatriation or on March 5, 2014, the company-designated physician issued a
final medical report clearing the petitioner of his illness. It must be noted that up
until then, the petitioner has been complaining and was treated of severe
headache and dizziness. Five months thereafter, the petitioner consulted with his
physician, who then issued a medical report on August 18, 2014, this time,
finding the petitioner to be suffering from cardio-vascular disease, and as such is
totally and permanently unable to continue with work.

From these undisputed facts, the following may be drawn: first, that the
company-designated physician complied with the law when he issued a
temporary disability rating within the 120-day period and a final assessment of
the petitioner's medical status prior to the expiration of the 240-day
period; second, that the petitioner, aggrieved of the findings issued by the
company-designated physician, availed of his rights under the POEA SEC and
consulted with his own physician who issued a contrary finding; and finally, that
despite the conflicting opinions of the two doctors, the matter was not referred to
a third doctor as mandated by Section 20-B(3) of the POEA SEC.
The dispute mechanism to determine liability for a disability benefits claim set
forth under the POEA SEC is a mandatory procedure which must be complied
with by the parties. It is an obligation imposed not only by law, but as well, as a
stipulation in the contract signed by the parties. Failure to comply with the
aforementioned procedure renders the disability grading and assessment by the
company-designated physician conclusive, the latter being the primary person to
determine the seafarer's disability or fitness to work.[39]

Here, the company-designated physician rendered his assessment within the

specified period. The petitioner, instead of expressing his disagreement to the
said findings, consulted a physician of his choice five months thereafter, and then
filed a Complaint for permanent total disability benefits on this basis. The
petitioner, by pursuing his claim before the labor tribunals without referring the
conflicting opinions to a third doctor for final determination, committed a breach
of his contractual obligation[40] and renders final upon the Court the assessment
by the company-designated physician that the petitioner is fit to work. [41]

Notably, the conflicting opinions of the two physicians as to the type of illness the
petitioner is suffering highlights even more the importance of seeking the opinion
of a third doctor. As between the two opinions nonetheless, even setting the
mandatory procedure aside, the Court still finds the assessment and the disability
rating by the company-designated physician to be more worthy of belief and
credence. The Court, in making such conclusion, is particularly mindful of the
efforts exerted by the company-designated physician to examine, diagnose, and
treat the petitioner. It was the company-designated physician who initially
attended to the petitioner after repatriation, the one who referred him to the
proper medical specialists, and consistently monitored his progress until he was
eventually declared lit to work on March 5, 2014. Ultimately, the certification
issued by the company-designated physician is based on medical records
obtained after a lengthy and thorough examination of the petitioner. In contrast,
the assessment relied upon by the petitioner from his own physician was issued
five months after the company-designated physician's assessment and only after
one consultation/examination. This brings legitimate doubts as to the accuracy of
the diagnosis issued by the petitioner's physician. For these reasons, the Court
cannot merely set aside the company-designated physician's findings in lieu of
that issued by the petitioner's doctor.[42]

While it is true that the provisions of the POEA SEC must be construed logically
and liberally in favor of Filipino seamen in pursuit of their employment on board
ocean-going vessels[43] consistent with the State's policy to afford full protection to
labor,[44] it does not mean that the Court should automatically rule in favor of the
seafarer. The provisions of the POEA SEC must be weighed in accordance with
the prescribed laws, procedure, and provisions of contract freely agreed upon by
the parties, and with utmost regard as well of the rights of the employers.

In closing, it must be said that the Court commiserates with the plight of our
seafarers who had to sacrifice and endure a lot in order to give their families a
better life. Nonetheless, the law and rules are there for a reason. They give order
and serve as an equalizing force between the different sectors of society. Thus, it
must be respected and followed. While it can be said that the POEA SEC was
drafted in order to promote the interest of Filipino workers abroad, the same
does not mean that its interpretation and implementation would have to always
benefit labor. The goal of every court in every litigation is to render justice. And
in this sense, it is not justice to favor labor on this score alone. Neither does this
excuses the workers from compliance with their obligations under the contract.
The scales of justice tilts in favor of labor only where the evidence presented by
both is in an equipoise,[45] and with due consideration to attendant circumstances.
When it is clear that it is the employee who failed to meet his freely and lawfully
contracted obligation, the Court must not hesitate to rule against them for as long
as the same is in accordance with what is due in light of established facts,
pertinent law, and relevant jurisprudence.[46]

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the instant

petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated June 8, 2016 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 143132, and its and Resolution dated
October 17, 2016, are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Peralta, (Chairperson), Leonen, Hernando, and Carandang,** JJ., concur.

April 5, 2019

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT

Sirs / Mesdames:

Please take notice that on March 6, 2019 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was
rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which
was received by this Office on April 5, 2019 at 1:12 p.m.

Very truly yours,

(SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court