MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILIPPINES, INC. / MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., LTD. AND MR. ANTONIO GALVEZ, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. GEOFFREY M. TORMIS AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SIXTH…

Marlow Navigation versus Tormis

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Marlow Navigation Philippines, Incorporated, its foreign principal Marlow Navigation Company, Limited, and their officer Antonio Galvez, Junior, against the seafarer Geoffrey Tormis and the National Labor Relations Commission. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul the Commission's award of permanent total disability benefits to a seafarer whom the company-designated physician had declared fit to work. The case matters because it settles who may assess a seafarer's disability, what happens when the employer refuses the third-doctor procedure, and how a fit-to-work certification is weighed against the findings of the seafarer's own physician.

Procedural History

Tormis filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for disability benefits, medical and sickness allowance, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Labor Arbiter Virginia Luyas-Azarraga dismissed the claim, holding that the company physician's fit-to-work findings, being the product of a more elaborate examination and treatment, prevailed over the one-day examination of the seafarer's doctor of choice. Tormis appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, Sixth Division, which reversed the Labor Arbiter and ordered the petitioners to pay disability benefits of 60,000 dollars plus ten percent as attorney's fees. The Commission denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The petitioners then went straight to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Facts

Marlow Navigation Philippines, as local manning agency for its principal, hired Geoffrey Tormis as an able-bodied seaman on board the vessel M/V Viola for a stipulated period of ten months. He signed his contract in January 2011, and before deployment he passed a series of medical examinations and was found fit to work by the company-designated physician. His duties involved strenuous manual work, including pushing, pulling, lifting, and carrying heavy loads of provisions.

In August 2011, while painting at the port side of the vessel, a sudden strong wave hit the ship. Tormis lost his balance and fell on a hard object. He suffered back pains and leg muscle cramps. Because the pain persisted and intensified, he was brought to a doctor in Cotonou, Benin, Africa, was given medication, and was advised to rest for a week. His condition did not improve, and he was brought to another doctor in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, who diagnosed lumbosciatalgia, declared him unfit to work, and recommended medical repatriation for further evaluation and treatment.

On his return to the Philippines, Tormis reported to the petitioners' office and was referred to the Manila Doctors Hospital, where he was admitted and underwent pelvic traction and daily physiotherapy. An MRI later showed lumbar disc herniation, and he underwent surgery. He was discharged but continued out-patient physiotherapy. After more than four months of treatment, the company-accredited doctor declared him fit to work. He continued to feel pain in his back and legs, so he wrote the petitioners seeking re-evaluation, and then wrote again signifying his intention to seek a second opinion from a doctor of his choice. The petitioners took no further action. Tormis consulted Dr. Renato Runas, an orthopedic surgeon, who confirmed that he was unfit to continue working as a seaman and assessed him with a partial permanent disability equivalent to Grade 8 impediment under the POEA Contract. Tormis then filed his complaint.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding permanent total disability benefits despite the company-designated physician's fit-to-work certification.
• Whether or not the findings of the company-designated physician are entitled to greater weight than those of the seafarer's doctor of choice.
• Whether or not the petitioners' refusal to agree on a third doctor affected the evidentiary value of the fit-to-work certification.
• Whether or not the seafarer's non-rehiring is proof of disability.
• Whether or not the award of attorney's fees was proper.

Applicable Provisions

Section 20, paragraph B, subparagraph 3 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract provides:

Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.

This fixes the period of sickness allowance and anchors the company physician's role in the assessment of disability.

The same provision continues:

If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties.

This is the conflict-resolution mechanism the Court found the petitioners violated by refusing to agree on a third doctor.

Article 2208 of the New Civil Code, as invoked by the Court, provides:

In the absence of a stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: x x x (2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect his interest; x x x (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of laborers and actions for indemnity under employer's liability laws.

This supports the award of attorney's fees in the seafarer's favor.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission committed no grave abuse of discretion. The company-designated physician's determination pertains only to the seafarer's entitlement to sickness allowance and nothing more. The provision recognizes the seafarer's right to a second medical opinion and even allows a third opinion; it is not a limitation but a guarantee of protection to overseas workers.

On the second issue, the Court refused to give the fit-to-work certification greater weight. The company-accredited doctor was a general practitioner, not an expert qualified to assess the seafarer's condition; the surgery and therapy were attended by an orthopedic surgeon and a physiatrist, and her assessment was based only on upper body capacity such as grip strength, pinch strength, and hand dexterity. The seafarer's doctor of choice was an orthopedic surgeon who evaluated the lumbar and lower extremities. The determination of the company-designated physician cannot prevail over the specific assessment of the independent physician.

On the third issue, the Court found that the seafarer had stated his willingness to be re-evaluated by a third doctor chosen by agreement, but the petitioners gave him no opportunity to do so. Their refusal violated the procedure laid down in the POEA Standard Employment Contract, and the fit-to-work certification cannot be upheld on its face.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the Commission's reliance on non-rehiring as proof of disability was without basis, since there was no evidence that the seafarer sought re-employment or that rehiring was a matter of course. Nevertheless, this did not alter the fact that the illness rendered him incapacitated to perform his customary work as a seafarer, entitling him to permanent total disability benefit. In disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated but the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one's earning capacity.

On the fifth issue, the Court sustained the award of attorney's fees, since the petitioners' act or omission compelled the seafarer to incur expenses to protect his interest.

Doctrine

The company-designated physician's assessment does not exclusively determine a seafarer's disability; the POEA Standard Employment Contract recognizes the seafarer's right to a second opinion and to a jointly agreed third doctor whose decision is final and binding. An employer who refuses to agree on a third doctor violates that procedure, and the fit-to-work certification cannot then be upheld on its face; the conflicting assessments must be weighed on their inherent merits. A fit-to-work certification issued by a general practitioner who did not perform the surgery or therapy cannot prevail over the specific assessment of the seafarer's orthopedic surgeon. In disability compensation, it is the incapacity to work and the impairment of earning capacity that is compensated, not the injury itself. Doubts in labor controversies are resolved in the laborer's favor, and the POEA Standard Employment Contract is construed liberally for the protection of Filipino seafarers.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Commission's decision and resolution awarding the seafarer permanent total disability benefits of 60,000 dollars plus ten percent as attorney's fees.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the company-designated physician's fit-to-work finding is not conclusive, and an employer who refuses the third-doctor procedure cannot rely on it. Examiners use this case on the seafarer's right to a second and third medical opinion, the weight of fit-to-work certifications, and the rule that what is compensated is the incapacity to work, not the injury.