MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILIPPINES INC., MARLOW NAVIGATION CO. LTD./ CYPRUS, LIGAYA C. DELA CRUZ AND ANTONIO GALVEZ, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. BRAULIO A. OSIAS, RESPONDENT.

Marlow Navigation versus Osias

The Case

This is a labor case about a seafarer's claim for permanent and total disability benefits. Marlow Navigation Philippines, its foreign principal, and its officers are the petitioners; Braulio Osias, a chief cook who was medically repatriated after fainting on board, is the respondent. The case matters because it settles, in one place, the working rules on the 120-day and 240-day periods within which a company-designated physician must assess a seafarer, and it shows when a seafarer's own conduct — here, his failure to follow his therapy — justifies extending that period. It is the case to cite when the examiner asks whether the mere lapse of 120 days automatically means total and permanent disability.

Procedural History

Osias filed a complaint for permanent and total disability benefits, damages, and attorney's fees before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the claim, giving weight to the company-designated physician's finding that Osias was fit to work and noting that Osias had skipped his treatment. Osias appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which affirmed the dismissal, and denied his motion for reconsideration. Osias then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which annulled the Commission's decision and resolution. The Court of Appeals held that because Osias was declared fit to work only after 147 days from repatriation — beyond the 120-day rule — he was entitled to total disability benefits, and it awarded sixty thousand dollars in benefits plus six thousand dollars in attorney's fees. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, so they came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Marlow Navigation hired Osias as chief cook on a container vessel for nine months at a basic monthly salary of six hundred ninety-eight dollars. On February 12, 2010, while preparing breakfast, he fainted and hit his head and shoulder on a garbage bin. He was treated in Virginia and advised to return home, and he was medically repatriated, arriving in the Philippines on February 15, 2010.

He reported to the company and was referred to the company-designated physician, who found degenerative osteoarthropathy of both knees and later diagnosed left shoulder contusion, lumbar strain, and osteoarthritis of both knees. The doctor prescribed physical therapy sessions every Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday beginning April 5, 2010. After only four sessions, Osias stopped attending without notice, and he returned only on May 14, 2010, more than a month later, having gone to La Union. The doctor noted the prolonged absence but continued the therapy.

On July 14, 2010 — 147 days after repatriation — the company-designated physician issued a final report and a certification that Osias was fit to return to work. Osias then consulted his own doctor, who opined in September 2010 that the osteoarthritis would prevent him from returning to his former work. He filed the complaint, and the labor tribunals below dismissed it, finding that he had caused the delay in his own treatment.

Issues

• Whether or not the delay in the company-designated physician's issuance of the fitness-to-work certification was due to the fault of the seafarer, and whether the mere lapse of the 120-day period renders him totally and permanently disabled.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the seafarer's personal doctor's assessment over the certification of the company-designated physician.
• Whether or not the award of attorney's fees was proper.

Applicable Provisions

Article 192 of the Labor Code provides:

Article 192. Permanent Total Disability. xxx (c) The following disabilities shall be deemed total and permanent: (1) Temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than one hundred twenty days, except as otherwise provided in the Rules.

This is the statutory anchor of the 120-day rule, and the Court reads it together with the exception clause that points to the implementing Rules.

Section 2 of Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation provides:

Section 2. Period of entitlement. — (a) The income benefit shall be paid beginning on the first day of such disability. If caused by an injury or sickness it shall not be paid longer than 120 consecutive days except where such injury or sickness still requires medical attendance beyond 120 days but not to exceed 240 days from onset of disability in which case benefit for temporary total disability shall be paid. However, the System may declare the total and permanent status at anytime after 120 days of continuous temporary total disability as may be warranted by the degree of actual loss or impairment of physical or mental functions as determined by the System.

This is the source of the extended 240-day period, which the Court applies when a sufficient justification exists.

Section 20 (B) (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 initial period of treatment and assessment, and it also contains the mechanism for challenging the company doctor's assessment through a third doctor.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled for the petitioners. Mere inability to work for 120 days does not automatically entitle a seafarer to permanent and total disability benefits. The company-designated physician has an initial 120 days to assess the seafarer, and this may be extended to 240 days where a sufficient justification exists, such as when further medical treatment is required or when the seafarer is uncooperative. Here, the justification was Osias's own uncooperativeness: he abandoned his therapy after four sessions and returned only after more than a month. The final assessment on July 14, 2010, at 147 days, was therefore well within the properly extended 240-day period.

On the second issue, the Court held that the company doctor's assessment, being timely and duly issued, must be fully appreciated. The referral to a third doctor is mandatory when there is a valid and timely assessment by the company-designated physician and the seafarer's appointed doctor refutes it. Osias did not avail of that mechanism, and his own doctor's opinion, based on a single consultation, could not prevail over the extensive treatment and diagnosis of the company physician.

On the third issue, with the claim for benefits failing, the award of attorney's fees had no basis.

Doctrine

Remember these rules as a sequence. First, the company-designated physician must issue a final assessment within 120 days from the seafarer's report. Second, if he fails to do so without justifiable reason, the disability becomes permanent and total. Third, if he fails within 120 days but with sufficient justification — further treatment required, or the seafarer uncooperative — the period extends to 240 days, and the employer bears the burden of proving that justification. Fourth, if no assessment is given within the extended 240 days, the disability becomes permanent and total regardless of justification. The determination of fitness is the province of the company-designated physician, subject to these periods, and a conflict with the seafarer's doctor must be resolved through the third-doctor mechanism under Section 20 (B) (3) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Court of Appeals decision and resolution were reversed and set aside, and the dismissal of Osias's claim for disability benefits was reinstated.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the lapse of 120 days does not by itself create total and permanent disability, because the period may be extended to 240 days upon sufficient justification, including the seafarer's own uncooperativeness. Examiners use this case to test the 120-day and 240-day rules and the mandatory third-doctor procedure when the seafarer's physician disagrees with the company doctor.