This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is for this very reason that the seafarer is given the freedom of choosing his own doctor[80] and why the Court is not precluded from awarding disability benefits on the basis of the medical opinion of the seafarer's physician.[81] | |||||
|
2013-02-26 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Respecting the findings of the CA that it is the 1996 POEA-SEC which is applicable, nonetheless the case of Abante v. KJGS Fleet Management Manila[22] is instructive and worthy of note. In the said case, the CA similarly held that the contract of the parties therein was also governed by Memo Circular No. 55, series of 1996.[23] Thus, the CA ruled that it is the assessment of the company-designated physician which is deemed controlling in the determination of a seafarer's entitlement to disability benefits and not the opinion of another doctor. Nevertheless, that conclusion of the CA was reversed by this Court. Instead, the Court upheld the findings of the independent physician as to the claimant's disability. The Court pronounced: Respecting the appellate court's ruling that it is POEA Memo Circular No. 55, series of 1996 which is applicable and not Memo Circular No. 9, series of 2000, apropos is the ruling in Seagull Maritime Corporation v. Dee involving employment contract entered into in 1999, before the promulgation of POEA Memo Circular No. 9, series of 2000 or the use of the new POEA Standard Employment Contract, like that involved in the present case. In said case, the Court applied the 2000 Circular in holding that while it is the company-designated physician who must declare that the seaman suffered permanent disability during employment, it does not deprive the seafarer of his right to seek a second opinion which can then be used by the labor tribunals in awarding disability claims.[24] | |||||
|
2013-02-26 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In any case, the bottomline is this: the certification of the company-designated physician would defeat petitioner's claim while the opinion of the independent physicians would uphold such claim. In such a situation, the Court adopts the findings favorable to petitioner. The law looks tenderly on the laborer. Where the evidence may be reasonably interpreted in two divergent ways, one prejudicial and the other favorable to him, the balance must be tilted in his favor consistent with the principle of social justice.[34] | |||||
|
2012-04-16 |
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] | |||||