September 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 180574 : September 14, 2011]
RUBEN T. UMAYAM V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FRIENDLY MARITIME SERVICES, INC. AND/OR ENRIQUE E. GIL
G.R. No. 180574 (Ruben T. Umayam v. National Labor Relations Commission, Friendly Maritime Services, Inc. and/or Enrique E. Gil).
RESOLUTION
Sometime in 2002, respondent Friendly Maritime Services, Inc. (FMS) hired petitioner Ruben T. Umayam as messman to serve on board M/V Anangel Dignity, a foreign vessel, for a monthly salary of US$328.00. He was to work for nine months, subject to a three-month extension upon mutual consent of the parties.
Umayam began his work on April 9, 2002, loading food stocks, serving food to the officers, assisting the Chief Cook, and cleaning the officers' cabins, galleys, provision room, and mess room. But on April 15, 2002 he hurt his back while carrying supplies to the provision room. Later that day, he slipped and fell on his buttocks, further aggravating his back pain. In the succeeding weeks, the pain worsened and started to radiate to his left leg.
On May 11, 2002 Umayam saw a doctor when his vessel docked in South Korea. The doctor diagnosed his illness as "L-Spine Sprain; R/O H/VD C Herniations of Intervertebral Disc." He was advised to undergo physical therapy but he was unable to do so since his vessel left port on May 13, 2002. On May 19, 2002 Umayam had an X-ray and CT Scan in a port in China. Since the finding was that he was unfit for work, the shipping company repatriated him to the Philippines on May 24, 2002.
On the following day, May 25, 2002 FMS referred Umayam to its designated doctor, Dr. Maria Cristina Ramos at the YGEIA Medical Clinic Manila, Inc. After undergoing an X-ray of his lumbo-sacral spine, an orthopedic specialist advised him to undergo a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).[1]
Umayam had a series of physical therapy sessions from May to July 2002. On July 22, 2002 Dr. Ramos declared him fit to work.[2] On July 30, 2002 FMS paid him P46,869.43 as injury allowance and reimbursement of medical expenses, for which he signed a Receipt and Release form.[3]
On August 28, 2003 Umayam filed a claim against FMS for medical reimbursement, sickness allowance, permanent disability benefits, moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney's fees before the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). He denied Dr. Ramos' finding that he was fit to work.
On September 8, 2003 Umayam consulted Dr. Rimando C. Saguin,[4] an orthopedic surgeon, who found Umayam unfit to work and assessed his disability at grade 11. On September 10, 2003 Dr. Nicanor F. Escutin, also an orthopedic surgeon,[5] declared him permanently unfit to work at sea and gave him a grade 11 disability rating.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint[6] on July 30, 2004, holding that the medical certificates from Umayam's private doctors cannot outweigh the findings of the company-designated doctor. The Labor Arbiter also noted that Umayam failed to timely dispute Dr. Ramos' assessment that he was fit to work and that he had already signed a Receipt and Release form in favor of FMS.
On appeal, the First Division of the NLRC affirmed in toto the decision of the Labor Arbiter.[7] The NLRC denied Umayam's motion for reconsideration,[8] prompting the latter to file a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP 95784.
On June 29, 2007 the CA dismissed Umayan�s petition.[9] With the denial of his motion for reconsideration,[10] he appealed to this Court under Rule 45, claiming that he is entitled to permanent disability benefits since his doctors said that he is unfit to work. He argues that the rules do not preclude him from getting a second opinion from his doctors and their finding should prevail over that of the company-designated doctor.
The core issue in this case is whether or not Umayam is entitled to permanent disability benefits based on the medical certificates issued by his own doctors.
The rights and obligations of the parties in this case are governed by the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On Board Ocean-Going Vessels, otherwise known as the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Standard Contract. Section 20 (B)[11] of the POEA Standard Contract provides that it is the company-designated doctor who should determine whether the seafarer is fit to work or permanently disable. But, if the seafarer's own doctor disagrees, the employer and the seafarer may jointly agree to get a third doctor's opinion. Such opinion is to be final and binding.
Umayam did not avail himself of this procedure. He did not seek a second opinion after Dr. Ramos, the company physician, declared him fit to work on July 22, 2002. Quite the contrary, he accepted Dr. Ramos� assessment and executed a Receipt and Release form in favor of FMS.
In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.,[12] the Court held that while a seafarer has the right to seek a second and third opinion, the final determination of whose decision must prevail should be done in accordance with an agreed procedure.
Umayam consulted two other doctors but only more than a year after his accident at sea and after he had been declared fit to work. What is more, he consulted his doctors weeks after he filed his NLRC complaint.
On the other hand, the Court notes that it was Dr. Ramos who administered and monitored Umayam's condition from the time he was repatriated up to the termination of his physical therapy program. She personally attended to him, referred him to an orthopedic specialist, and supervised his therapy. Under the circumstances, therefore, her findings should be given more weight than the belated certifications from Umayam's doctors.
Besides, findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, and affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court, which is not a trier of facts. Such findings are generally accorded not only respect but finality, and should not to be altered, modified or reversed.[13]cralaw
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the June 29, 2007 Decision and the November 9, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 95784.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 114-115.[2] Id. at 118.
[3] Id. at 119.
[4] Id. at 291.
[5] Id. at 170-171.
[6] Id. at 172-182. Penned by Labor Arbiter Dolores M. Peralta-Beley.
[7] Id. at 211-213. Penned by OIC (Office of the Chairman) Raul T. Aquino and concurred in by Commissioners Proculo T. Sarmen and Romeo L. Go.
[8] Id. at 230-231. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Ernesto R. Bitonio, Jr. and concurred in by Commissioners Perlita B. Velasco and Romeo L. Go.
[9] Id. at 40-52. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Vicente Q. Roxas.
[10] Id. at 54-56.
[11] B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:
1. x x x
2. x x x
3. 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.For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a postemployment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties.
[12] G.R. No. 172933, October 6, 2008, 567 SCRA 610, 630.
[13] Diversified Security, Inc. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 152234, April 15, 2010, 618 SCRA 289, 293-294.
