MAGSAYSAY MITSUI OSK MARINE, INC., KOYO MARINE, CO. LTD., AND CONRADO DELA CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. OLIVER G. BUENAVENTURA, RESPONDENT.

Magsaysay Mitsui OSK Marine versus Buenaventura

The Case

This is a labor case between a manning agency and its foreign principal, together with the vessel's captain, on one side, and a seafarer they hired, Oliver Buenaventura, on the other. The seafarer suffered a serious injury to his right hand on board the vessel and later claimed total and permanent disability benefits under the collective bargaining agreement, plus medical expenses, damages, and attorney's fees. The case matters because it settles two questions every maritime labor practitioner must know: whether the company-designated physician's fit-to-work certification is conclusive, and how the 120-day and 240-day periods for issuing a disability assessment are to be applied.

Procedural History

Buenaventura filed a complaint for disability compensation before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, holding that the company-designated physician had declared him fit to work and that this declaration, absent bad faith, was the sole basis for awarding disability benefits. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the dismissal in its resolution, and later denied his motion for reconsideration. Buenaventura then went up to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the Commission. The appellate court held that a seafarer may seek a second opinion, that the company physician's findings are not conclusive, and that because the fit-to-work declaration came only after six months from repatriation, the seafarer was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, awarding disability benefits, nominal damages, and attorney's fees. The agency's motion for reconsideration was denied. The agency then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Magsaysay Mitsui OSK Marine, on behalf of its principal Koyo Marine, hired Buenaventura as an ordinary seaman on board the vessel Meridian under a nine-month contract with a basic monthly salary of 403 dollars, subject to the collective bargaining agreement.

On 25 January 2007, a mooring winch crushed Buenaventura's right hand. He suffered a fracture of the right first metacarpal bone and an open fracture of the right second metacarpal bone, requiring emergency surgery in Japan. He was medically repatriated on 21 February 2007 and referred to the company-designated clinic, where an orthopedic surgeon attended to him. On 3 August 2007, the company-designated physician declared him fit to work after conservative management, rehabilitation, and occupational therapy, although Buenaventura still felt pain, especially in cold weather. A later medical certificate noted that the plates in his hand might be causing the pain and that their removal would cost around 70,000 pesos, which the company would not shoulder.

Buenaventura then consulted his own physicians. One found him unfit to work and recommended physical therapy; an orthopedic surgeon diagnosed inability to extend the right hand, weak grip, a healed flap on the back of the hand, deformity and atrophy of the thumb, and traumatic arthritis, and opined that it would be difficult for him to continue working as a seaman. Relying on these differing opinions, he filed the complaint. He never informed the company of these conflicting findings and never initiated the referral of the dispute to a third doctor.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in awarding full and permanent disability benefits despite the company-designated physician's declaration that the seafarer was fit to work.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in treating the seafarer as totally and permanently disabled on the ground that he was unable to work beyond the statutory period, when the contract measures disability by grading and he was declared fit to work within that period.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in awarding nominal damages and attorney's fees despite the absence of bad faith on the part of the employers.

Applicable Provisions

Section 20(A) of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, as revised, provides:

Should the seafarer's appointed doctor disagree with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed upon by the employer and the seafarer and the latter's decision shall be final and binding between the parties.

This is the provision the Court uses to hold that a seafarer may challenge the company physician's assessment, but must channel the conflict to a third doctor.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the company-designated physician's findings are not conclusive and that a seafarer is not precluded from challenging the diagnosis. The mechanism is expressly provided in the Standard Employment Contract, and bad faith or malice is not required before a seafarer may seek another opinion. However, the Court held that Buenaventura was bound to initiate the referral of the conflicting findings to a third-party physician by informing his employer, because the Standard Employment Contract is part and parcel of the employment contract. Instead, he filed his complaint without informing the company of the differing opinions. Following its earlier rulings, the Court held that the duty to secure the third doctor's opinion belongs to the employee asking for disability benefits, and that without a binding third-party opinion, the fit-to-work certification of the company's physicians prevails. The Court added that this does not mean courts must adopt the certification hook, line, and sinker: it may be set aside upon a showing of clear bias, such as a lack of scientific relation between the diagnosis and the symptoms, or an assessment unsupported by the medical records. Here, the seafarer was assessed by an orthopedic surgeon after lengthy evaluation and treatment, and there was insufficient evidence of clear bias.

On the second issue, the Court held that the mere lapse of the 120-day period does not automatically render the disability permanent and total. The period may be extended to 240 days where circumstances justify it, and the employer bears the burden of proving sufficient justification. In this case, the extension was justified because during the interim the seafarer underwent therapy and rehabilitation and was continuously observed; the company's physicians did not sit idly by. He was declared fit to work after six months, within the allowable extended period.

On the third issue, since the complaint was dismissed for lack of merit and no bad faith was shown, the awards of nominal damages and attorney's fees could not stand.

Doctrine

A seafarer may challenge the company-designated physician's assessment without showing bad faith, but where his physician of choice disagrees, he must initiate the referral of the conflicting findings to a third doctor mutually agreed upon by the parties. The duty to secure that third opinion belongs to the seafarer. If he fails to do so, the company physician's fit-to-work certification prevails, unless there is clear bias shown by the absence of scientific relation between the diagnosis and the symptoms, or by an assessment unsupported by the medical records. The mere lapse of the 120-day period does not automatically make the disability permanent and total; the period may be extended to 240 days upon sufficient justification, which the employer must prove.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Court of Appeals decision and resolution were reversed and set aside, and the complaint for total and permanent disability benefits was dismissed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the duty to refer conflicting medical findings to a third doctor belongs to the seafarer, and failing it, the company-designated physician's certification prevails absent clear bias. Examiners use this case to test the third-doctor rule under the Standard Employment Contract and the 120-day versus 240-day periods in seafarer disability claims.