Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MICRONESIA RESOURCES v. FABIOLO CANTOMAYOR

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 199568 2015-06-17	DOHLE-PHILMAN MANNING AGENCY v. HEIRS OF ANDRES G. GAZZINGAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
“It is beyond cavil that it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman’s disability.”[43] It is the company-designated physician’s findings which should form the basis of any disability claim of the seafarer. Such assessment is arrived at after the seafarer submits himself to the company-designated physician for a post employment medical examination within three days from his repatriation. It is significant to note, however, that courts are not bound by the assessment of the company-designated physician.[44] While the company-designated physician must declare the nature of a seafarer’s disability, the former’s declaration is not conclusive and final upon the latter or the court.[45] Its inherent merit will still be weighed and duly considered.
	GR No. 186289 2010-06-29	ORIENTAL SHIPMANAGEMENT CO. v. ROMY B. BASTOL VELASCO JR., J.
The foregoing concept of permanent disability has been consistently employed by the Court in subsequent cases involving seafarers, such as in Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad,[80] in which it was reiterated that permanent disability means the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days. Also in Philimare, Inc. v. Suganob,[81] notwithstanding the opinion of the company-designated physician that the seafarer therein was fit to work provided he regularly took his medication, the Court held that the latter suffered permanent disability in view of evidence that he had been unable to work as chief cook for more than 7 months. Similarly, in Micronesia Resources v. Cantomayor[82] and United Philippine Lines, Inc. and/or Holland America Line, Inc. v. Beseril,[83] the Court declared the seafarers therein to have suffered from a permanent disability after taking evidence into account that they had remained under treatment for more than 120 days, and were unable to work for the same period.
	GR No. 163838 2008-09-25	WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The foregoing concept of permanent disability has been consistently employed by the Court in subsequent cases involving seafarers, such as in Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad, in which it was reiterated that permanent disability means the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days.[31] Also in Philmare, Inc. v. Suganob,[32] notwithstanding the opinion of the company-designated physician that the seafarer therein was fit to work provided he regularly took his medication, the Court held that the latter suffered from permanent disability in view of evidence that he had been unable to work as chief cook for more than 7 months. Similarly, in Micronesia Resources v. Cantomayor[33] and United Philippine Lines, Inc. and/or Holland America Line, Inc. v. Beseril,[34] the Court declared the seafarers therein to have suffered from a permanent disability after taking evidence into account that they had remained under treatment for more than 120 days, and were unable to work for the same period.
	GR No. 161416 2008-06-13	MAUNLAD TRANSPORT AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Likewise, in Seagull Maritime Corp. v. Dee,[35] involving a 1999 overseas contract, the Court sustained the NLRC and CA that the medical reports issued by the physicians of choice of the claimant were more in accord with the evidence, and rejected the one issued by the company-designated physician for inconsistency between the recommendation that the disability of the claimant is at Grade 11 only and the finding explicitly stated therein that "there is no guarantee that [claimant] will be able to return to his previous strenuous work." There the Court categorically ruled that "nowhere x x x did we hold that the company-designated phyisician's assessment of the nature and extent of a seaman's disability is final and conclusive on the employer company and the seafarer-claimant x x x 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 the right to seek a second opinion." The Court emphasized this view in Micronesia Resources v. Cantomayor.[36]
	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]