Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. v. Gatchalian, Jr., G.R. No. 207507, [February 17, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. v. Gatchalian, Jr.

 G.R. No. 207507, [February 17, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Illness; fit-to-work order; Disability benefits Denied despite Knee Injury 

Without a binding third-party doctor’s opinion, the findings of the company-designated physician shall prevail over the assessment made by the seafarer’s doctor.

 

Jose worked as Chief Cook for Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. (Doehle-Philman) and Doehle (IOM) Ltd. (Doehle) since 2002. He signed a nine-month contract to serve onboard M/V Independent Endeavor and experienced intense knee pain on December 4, 2006, due to an accident in August 2006. He underwent surgery and therapy, and by February 14, 2007, was declared fit to work by the company-designated doctor. In 2009, Jose filed a complaint for total disability benefits, citing a medical certificate diagnosing him with Traumatic Arthritis. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, which the NLRC affirmed. However, the CA granted Jose permanent total disability benefits, considering the work-relatedness of his condition and petitioners' failure to rehire him. 

 

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the finding of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that Jose was properly declared fit to work. 

YES. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The fit-to-work assessment by the company-designated doctor was timely and valid. Jose failed to contest it within the prescribed period or comply with the procedure for the appointment of a third doctor. The fit-to-work assessment made by the company-designated doctor should prevail over the assessment made by Jose's independent physician. The seafarer is bound by the findings of the company-designated doctor, who has the proper discernment, knowledge, experience, and expertise on what constitutes total or partial disability. Thus, the company-designated doctor's assessment prevails. Moreover, Jose's failure to seek reemployment does not automatically entitle him to disability benefits. Non-reemployment of a seafarer does not automatically warrant the grant of total and permanent disability benefits. The seafarer must show that he sought employment but was turned down due to his disability. SC denied Jose's claim for permanent total disability benefits.

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT