GRF SHIPPING AGENCY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION AND LIBRADO V. VARGAS, RESPONDENTS.

On April 7, 1986, Librado Vargas was
recruited by the petitioner, GRF Shipping Agency, Inc., to work as a third
engineer, with a monthly salary of $615, on board the M/V ‘Barbara Morgan,’ a
vessel of Chaldeos Freighters Ltd.

On February 14, 1987,
while the ship was on its way to Cuiota,
Morocco, Vargas felt
severe pain in the region of his previous hernia operation, apparently caused
by excessive physical exertion on his part while calibrating the main engine
injection valve of the ship, a task which ordinarily would have required at
least two or more persons to perform.  He
was given first aid treatment and when the ship arrived in Tunisia,
he was examined by a Tunisian doctor, Dr. Rekik Abbdellatif, who found that he was suffering from hernia,
and recommended his immediate
repatriation for further treatment.  However, the ship captain advised him to wait for the shipowner or his representative.

On February 26, 1987,
Benjamin Sabat, the recruiter’s representative,
arrived in Tunisia.  He was
notified of Vargas’ illness.  On March 2, 1987, Sabat
brought Vargas to the same Tunisian
doctor who had earlier examined him. 
The doctor affirmed his previous
diagnosis that Vargas was suffering from hernia and recommended his
immediate repatriation to the Philippines.  He
issued another medical certificate to that effect.

Notwithstanding the doctor’s advice, Sabat
wanted Vargas to await the ship’s arrival in Greece,
which would take about two months of navigation, as repatriation was allegedly
not allowed by the laws of Tunisia.
Vargas sought the help of the ship’s agent who brought the matter to the attention of the Port Authority in Spax, Tunisia.  He
was thereafter allowed by Sabat to be repatriated and he was advised to draw his salary for February,
1987, from the petitioner upon his arrival in Manila.

Upon his arrival in the Philippines,
Vargas was brought for treatment to the company’s doctor, a certain Dr. Gavino.  He was
treated at the FEU Hospital
until he recovered from his illness.  Dr.
Gavino opined that Vargas suffered from Spermatic
Cord Infection, a disease not subject to repatriation.  As a result, the petitioner deducted from
Vargas’ February salary the sum of P9,704.90 for the
medical expenses defrayed by the petitioner, and P5,300.00 from his salaries for
June and August, 1986.

On April 24, 1987,
Vargas filed a complaint for non-payment of wages, illegal deductions, and unpaid medical benefits.

On June 17, 1988,
the POEA rendered a decision allowing his claims.  The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered ordering as follows:

“Payment by respondent GRF Shipping Agency unto the
complainant the following:

“1.  P9,704.90
representing medical expenses deducted from his allotment for February, 1987;

“2.  P5,300.00
representing the amount deducted from his salaries for June and August 1986;

“3.  US$615.00
– his sickness wages from 1 March to 2
April 1987; and

“4.  P3,000.00
as and for attorney’s fees, to be tendered thru this office within ten (10)
days from receipt hereof.” (pp. 31-32, Rollo.)

The petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations
Commission.  On September 29, 1990, the NLRC dismissed the
appeal, and affirmed in toto the POEA’s decision.  Hence, this petition for certiorari.

The issue raised by the petition is whether or not the NLRC
gravely abused its discretion in finding that, as certified by the Tunisian
doctor, Vargas’ ailment was hernia (which is a cause for repatriation of the employee) and not spermatic
cord infection, as found by the petitioner’s Manila doctor, which is not a
ground for repatriation.  This is a
factual question which is for the public respondents, as triers
of fact, to determine.  “Well settled is the rule that factual
findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the National Labor Relations
Commission, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is
confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but at
times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence.”
(Baby Bus, Inc. vs. Minister of Labor, 158 SCRA 221.) The
NLRC correctly observed that the medical certificate issued by the petitioner’s own physician was
self-serving evidence.  As such, its
probative value is inferior compared with the medical certificate issued in Tunisia by an impartial foreign doctor in the
presence of petitioner’s own representative who did not question its veracity
and authenticity at the time.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is dismissed
for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.