Lawyerly

GR No. 195598

2014-06-25

TEEKAY SHIPPING PHILIPPINES v. EXEQUIEL O. JARIN

REYES, J.

It is well to note that in resolving disputes on disability benefits, the fundamental consideration has been that the POEA-SEC was designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment onboard ocean-going vessels. As such, its provisions must be construed and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in their favor because only then can its beneficent provisions be fully carried into effect.[54]

GR No. 188190

2014-04-21

BARKO INTERNATIONAL v. EBERLY S. ALCAYNO

REYES, J.

Permanent total disability means "disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work or work of a similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment can do."[38] And, as aptly observed by the LA and affirmed by the CA: While [the respondent] may have pulmonary fibrosis [right] lower lung with calcified benign as per PEME, it must be noted that he was declared fit for work x x x. Hence, he was able to board the vessel.

GR No. 199932

2013-07-03

CAMILO A. ESGUERRA v. UNITED PHILIPPINES LINES

REYES, J.

Permanent and total disability means "disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work or work of a similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment can do."[34]

GR No. 200837

2013-06-05

MAERSK FILIPINAS CREWING INC. v. NELSON E. MESINA

REYES, J.

At the onset, it is well to note that in resolving disputes on disability benefits, the fundamental consideration has been that the POEA-SEC was designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels. As such, its provisions must be construed and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in their favor because only then can its beneficent provisions be fully carried into effect.[22]

GR No. 168703

2013-02-26

RAMON G. NAZARENO v. MAERSK FILIPINAS CREWING INC.

PERALTA, J.

Verily, in the cited case of Seagull Maritime Corporation v. Dee,[25] this Court held that nowhere in the case of German Marine Agencies, Inc. v NLRC[26] was it held that the company-designated physician's assessment of the nature and extent of a seaman's disability is final and conclusive on the employer company and the seafarer-claimant. While it is the company-designated physician who must declare that the seaman suffered a permanent disability during employment, it does not deprive the seafarer of his right to seek a second opinion.[27]

GR No. 194758

2012-10-24

RUBEN D. ANDRADA v. AGEMAR MANNING AGENCY

MENDOZA, J.

Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements that it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman's disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of the latter's employment.[18] It is his findings and evaluations which should form the basis of the seafarer's disability claim. His assessment, however, is not automatically final, binding or conclusive on the claimant, the labor tribunal or the courts,[19] as its inherent merits would still have to be weighed and duly considered. The seafarer may dispute such assessment by seasonably exercising his prerogative to seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of his choice.[20] In case of disagreement between the findings of the company-designated physician and the seafarer's doctor of choice, the employer and the seaman may agree jointly to refer the latter to a third doctor whose decision shall be final and binding on them.

GR No. 173951

2012-04-16

DANIEL M. ISON v. CREWSERVE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In Seagull Maritime Corp. v. Dee,[29] however, a case involving an employment contract entered into in 1999 as in this case, we have held that resort to prognosis of other physicians may be allowed especially so if there are serious doubts on the evaluation made by the company-designated physician. The same ruling was applied in Abante v. KJGS Fleet Management Manila[30] in that the seafarer was given an option to seek a second opinion from his preferred physician notwithstanding the fact that it was the POEA Memorandum Circular No. 05-96 which governed the parties' contract of employment. Hence, "while it is the company-designated physician who must declare that the seaman suffers a permanent disability during employment, it does not deprive the seafarer of his right to seek a second opinion, hence the Contract recognizes the prerogative of the seafarer to request a second opinion and, for this purpose, to consult a physician of his choice."[31]

GR No. 175894

2008-11-14

NYK-FIL SHIP MANAGEMENT INC. v. ALFONSO T. TALAVERA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

This provision substantially incorporates the 1996 POEA Standard Employment Contract. Passing on the 1996 POEA Standard Employment Contract, this Court held that "[w]hile it is the company-designated physician who must declare that the seaman suffers a permanent disability during employment, it does not deprive the seafarer of his right to seek a second opinion," hence, the Contract "recognizes the prerogative of the seafarer to request a second opinion and, for this purpose, to consult a physician of his choice."[28]

GR No. 158073

2007-11-23

ALEX M. CADORNIGARA v. NLRC

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As provided under Section 20-B of the POEA-SEC, it is the company-designated physician who must certify that petitioner has suffered a permanent disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of his employment.[30] While such certification is not conclusive,[31] to impugn the same, petitioner must indicate facts or evidence of record that contradict such finding[32] or present the contrary opinion of his appointed physician.[33]

GR NO. 156573

2007-06-19

MICRONESIA RESOURCES v. FABIOLO CANTOMAYOR

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Not so. We have held that while it is the company-designated physician who must declare that a seafarer-claimant suffers a permanent disability, the former's declaration is not conclusive upon the latter or the court.[29] In the present case, there is no indication that Cantomayor sought a second opinion. Nonetheless, it is of record that the latter was rendered unfit to discharge his duties as Third Officer for more than 120 days. It is of record that Cantomayor was repatriated on March 23, 1999. Almost seven months later or on October 8, 1999, Micronesia, et al.'s designated physician issued the following medical findings on the condition of Cantomayor:x x x Post-operatively, he developed post-operative wound infection on care. Post-operative Treadmill Exercise Test was done last September 96, 1999 and the findings revealed signs of ischemia at the inferolateral wall.

	GR No. 195598 2014-06-25	TEEKAY SHIPPING PHILIPPINES v. EXEQUIEL O. JARIN REYES, J.
It is well to note that in resolving disputes on disability benefits, the fundamental consideration has been that the POEA-SEC was designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment onboard ocean-going vessels. As such, its provisions must be construed and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in their favor because only then can its beneficent provisions be fully carried into effect.[54]
	GR No. 188190 2014-04-21	BARKO INTERNATIONAL v. EBERLY S. ALCAYNO REYES, J.
Permanent total disability means "disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work or work of a similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment can do."[38] And, as aptly observed by the LA and affirmed by the CA: While [the respondent] may have pulmonary fibrosis [right] lower lung with calcified benign as per PEME, it must be noted that he was declared fit for work x x x. Hence, he was able to board the vessel.
	GR No. 199932 2013-07-03	CAMILO A. ESGUERRA v. UNITED PHILIPPINES LINES REYES, J.
Permanent and total disability means "disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work or work of a similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment can do."[34]
	GR No. 200837 2013-06-05	MAERSK FILIPINAS CREWING INC. v. NELSON E. MESINA REYES, J.
At the onset, it is well to note that in resolving disputes on disability benefits, the fundamental consideration has been that the POEA-SEC was designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels. As such, its provisions must be construed and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in their favor because only then can its beneficent provisions be fully carried into effect.[22]
	GR No. 168703 2013-02-26	RAMON G. NAZARENO v. MAERSK FILIPINAS CREWING INC. PERALTA, J.
Verily, in the cited case of Seagull Maritime Corporation v. Dee,[25] this Court held that nowhere in the case of German Marine Agencies, Inc. v NLRC[26] was it held that the company-designated physician's assessment of the nature and extent of a seaman's disability is final and conclusive on the employer company and the seafarer-claimant. While it is the company-designated physician who must declare that the seaman suffered a permanent disability during employment, it does not deprive the seafarer of his right to seek a second opinion.[27]
	GR No. 194758 2012-10-24	RUBEN D. ANDRADA v. AGEMAR MANNING AGENCY MENDOZA, J.
Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements that it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman's disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of the latter's employment.[18] It is his findings and evaluations which should form the basis of the seafarer's disability claim. His assessment, however, is not automatically final, binding or conclusive on the claimant, the labor tribunal or the courts,[19] as its inherent merits would still have to be weighed and duly considered. The seafarer may dispute such assessment by seasonably exercising his prerogative to seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of his choice.[20] In case of disagreement between the findings of the company-designated physician and the seafarer's doctor of choice, the employer and the seaman may agree jointly to refer the latter to a third doctor whose decision shall be final and binding on them.
	GR No. 173951 2012-04-16	DANIEL M. ISON v. CREWSERVE DEL CASTILLO, J.
In Seagull Maritime Corp. v. Dee,[29] however, a case involving an employment contract entered into in 1999 as in this case, we have held that resort to prognosis of other physicians may be allowed especially so if there are serious doubts on the evaluation made by the company-designated physician. The same ruling was applied in Abante v. KJGS Fleet Management Manila[30] in that the seafarer was given an option to seek a second opinion from his preferred physician notwithstanding the fact that it was the POEA Memorandum Circular No. 05-96 which governed the parties' contract of employment. Hence, "while it is the company-designated physician who must declare that the seaman suffers a permanent disability during employment, it does not deprive the seafarer of his right to seek a second opinion, hence the Contract recognizes the prerogative of the seafarer to request a second opinion and, for this purpose, to consult a physician of his choice."[31]
	GR No. 175894 2008-11-14	NYK-FIL SHIP MANAGEMENT INC. v. ALFONSO T. TALAVERA CARPIO MORALES, J.
This provision substantially incorporates the 1996 POEA Standard Employment Contract. Passing on the 1996 POEA Standard Employment Contract, this Court held that "[w]hile it is the company-designated physician who must declare that the seaman suffers a permanent disability during employment, it does not deprive the seafarer of his right to seek a second opinion," hence, the Contract "recognizes the prerogative of the seafarer to request a second opinion and, for this purpose, to consult a physician of his choice."[28]
	GR No. 158073 2007-11-23	ALEX M. CADORNIGARA v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As provided under Section 20-B of the POEA-SEC, it is the company-designated physician who must certify that petitioner has suffered a permanent disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of his employment.[30] While such certification is not conclusive,[31] to impugn the same, petitioner must indicate facts or evidence of record that contradict such finding[32] or present the contrary opinion of his appointed physician.[33]
	GR NO. 156573 2007-06-19	MICRONESIA RESOURCES v. FABIOLO CANTOMAYOR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Not so. We have held that while it is the company-designated physician who must declare that a seafarer-claimant suffers a permanent disability, the former's declaration is not conclusive upon the latter or the court.[29] In the present case, there is no indication that Cantomayor sought a second opinion. Nonetheless, it is of record that the latter was rendered unfit to discharge his duties as Third Officer for more than 120 days. It is of record that Cantomayor was repatriated on March 23, 1999. Almost seven months later or on October 8, 1999, Micronesia, et al.'s designated physician issued the following medical findings on the condition of Cantomayor:x x x Post-operatively, he developed post-operative wound infection on care. Post-operative Treadmill Exercise Test was done last September 96, 1999 and the findings revealed signs of ischemia at the inferolateral wall.

SEAGULL MARITIME CORP. v. JAYCEE DEE