NORMILITO R. CAGATIN v.

MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION

G.R. No. 175795, 22 June 2015, THIRD DIVISION (Peralta, J.)

Claims for compensation based on surmises cannot be allowed; liberal construction is not a
license to disregard the evidence on record or to misapply the laws.

Normilito R. Cagatin (Cagatin) was an employee of Magsaysay Maritime Corporation (MMC) in

behalf of its principal C.S.C.S. International NV. He was initially assigned to work as a Cabin Steward to
work on board the vessel Costa Atlantica. However, sometime in May, he was assigned to work at
another ship, Costa Tropicale and was required to perform tasks like cleaning the ship, and lifting
objects like furniture, steel vaults and others for almost two-months. When the ship had sailed and
Cagatin started performing his official duty, he felt a “crackle” or a slip in his back or spinal bone which
was followed by an intense pain in the back and an inability to bend. He underwent medical
examinations with the company-designated physician Dr. Nicomedes Cruz which told him that he was
suffering from "small central disc protrusion with annular fissure formation L5S1; disc annular bulge
L4L5.” and continued to see and treat Cagatin until January 15, 2002. However, on January 10, 2002,
Dr Cruz reported that the results of Cagatin “EMG-NCV” was “Normal” and that Cagatin has no back
pain and could tolerate walking, standing, and sitting for prolonged periods of time. On January 15, he
was declared fit to work.

After seven months, on August 6, 2002, Cagatin went to his personal physician, Dr. Enrique
Collantes for another opinion. Dr. Collantes declared that he was no longer fit to work at sea in a
vessel, which contradicts the earlier finding of Dr. Cruz. Hence, Cagatin filed before the National Labor
Relation Commission (NLRC) to claim his disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter declared in favor of
Cagatin. However, on appeal to the NLRC, the decision was overturned and was in favor of MMC
holding that the power and authority to assess and declare a seafarer’s disability was vested solely on
the company-designated physician. It held that the findings of the company-designated physician were
to be accorded greater weight in the absence of bad faith, malice, or fraud. The Court of Appeals (CA)
also dismissed the said case and affirmed NLRC’s decision noting that the report of Cagatin’s physician
came only seven (7) months after he was declared unfit and may have been caused by other factors.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not there was bad faith on the part of the employers.
2. Whether or not Cagatin is entitled to receive disability benefits.

RULING:

1. NO. In labor cases, the basic rule is that the burden of evidence lies with the party who
asserts an issue.

Hence, in cases of disability benefits, the seafarer must establish his claim with substantial
evidence supporting the same. In this case, Cagatin failed to discharge this burden for he failed to
substantiate his own physician’s report with supporting tests and examinations and also failed to
establish proof that there was malice and abuse on the findings of Dr Cruz. His assertion that the Dr
Cruz’s declaration of his fitness to go to work and the latter’s request for him to come back for further
tests constitute bad faith because they are contradictory are untenable. On the contrary, Dr Cruz’s
findings were supported by tests and opinions of experts which the Cagatin failed to establish.

2. NO. Under the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino
Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels (also known as POEA Standard Employment Contract [POEA-
SEC]) under POEA Memorandum Circular No. 9, part of section 20 of which states:

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.

Under the above provision, Cagatin had another choice which was to agree with the employer
to appoint a third doctor to assess the former’s situation. Furthermore, even though disability claims
are to be construed in favor of labour, claims based on surmises or those without sufficient evidence
cannot be allowed; liberal construction is not a license to disregard the evidence on record or to
misapply the laws. Hence the Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.