Richie P. Chan Vs. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, CSCS International NV and/or Ms.

Doris Ho

G.R. No. 239055 March 11, 2020

FACTS:

Petitioner Richie P. Chan sued respondents Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, CSCS

International N/V and/or Ms. Doris Ho for permanent total disability benefits, moral, and exemplary
damages, and attorney’s fees. On november 19, 2012, Magsaysay Maritime Corporation , in behalf of its
principal CSCS International NV engaged his services as fireman on board Costa Voyager-D/E. On
November 25, 2012, he boarded the vessel. On April 2013, he felt severe pain after he slipped and hit his
right knee on the deck during a regular boat drill. He was initially treated at the ship’s hospital, given pain
medication, and advised to rest. Sometime in the first week of May 8, 2013, he was brought to a hospital
in Turkey and given pain medication. As he could no longer work, he was repatriated on May 13, 2013.

Upon his return to the country, he reported to the respondents’ office and was referred to the
company-designated physician at the Matine Medical Center. He was diagnosed with gouty athritis with
meniscal tear and advised to undergo surgery. But since he refused surgery, he was further advised to take
medication and rehabilitation instead.

On July 11, 2013, the company-designated physician issued Disabily Grade 10. Meantie, he was
provided further therapy and medication. On August 16, 2013, the company designated physician noted
he had attained maximum medical cure and was given a final assessment of Disability Grade 10.

On August 17, 2013, he was his decision to undergo surgery which respondents agreed to
provide. He was admitted for surgery on August 27, 2013 or three (3) months after repatriation. Despite
the surgery, his condition did not improve. On October 29, 2013, the company – designated physician
noted that he had already attained maximum medical cure with Grade 10 disability.

Due to perssitent pain after surgery and respondents’ continued silence on whether he could
resume his seafarer duties, he consulted an independent medical expert who, after a series of
examinations, issued a Medical Report dated January 6, 2014, declaring him unfit for sea duty due to
persistent pain on the knee, swelling, and limited movement. Thereafter, he asked respondents for total
permanent disability benefits but to no avail.

On the other hand, respondents countered that Chan had no cause of action since he failed to
follow the procedure in contesting the findings of the company-designated physician. Chan had
prematurely filed of his own choice. Thus, any medical document that Chan may have later submitted
would only be a mere afterthought for the sole purpose of claiming total disability benefits. Too, Chan’s
delayed treatment which exceeded one hundred twnety (120) days should be attributed to him as he
himself requested more time to decide whether to undergo surgery. Assuming Chan was entitled to
disability benefits, it should be limited to Grade 10 disability, as assessed by the company-designated
physician. Chan is not entitled to damages and attorney’s fees as respondents were never in bad faith in
dealing with him. Lastly, respondent Ms. Doris Ho should be dropped as party respondent since Chan
had no employer-employee relationship with her.

ISSUES:

1. Is the October 29, 2013 medical assessment of the company-designated physician complete, final
and definite?
2. Is the referral to a third doctor mandatory?
3. Is the petitioner entitled to total and permanent benefits?

RULING:

1. No, the medical assessment issued by the company-desiganated pphysicial cannot be considered
complete, final, and definite as it did not show how the disability assessment was arrived at. If at
all, the assessment merely stated that petitioner had attained maximum medical treatment and
declared petitioner’s disabiliy at Grade 10. A declaration of disability in the medical assessment,
without more, cannot be considered complete, final and definitive.

2. No, the mandatory third- doctor referral is not applicable in this case. Under Sectin 20(A)(3) of
the 2010 POEA-SEC,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 thrid doctor’s decision
shall be final and binding on both parties. The provision refers to the declaration to fitness to
work or the degree of disability. It presupposes that the company-designated physician came up
with a valid, final, and definite assessment as to the seafarer’s fitness or unfitness to work before
the expiration of the one hundred twenty day or 240 – day period.

As stated, there is no ocassion here for the mandatory third-doctor referral precisely
because a complete, final, and definite medical assessment from the company-designated
physician is absent. Aside from the fact that the so-called October 29, 2013 medical assessment,
if at all it exist, was not actually relayed to petitioner. To repeat, it is the same issuance and the
corresponding conveyance to the employee of the final medical assessment by the company-
designated physician that triggers the application of Section 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC.
3. Yes, Chan is rightfully entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. In disability
compensation cases, it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather, the incapacity to work
resulting in the impairment of one’s earning capacity. Total disability refers to an employee’s
inability to perform his or her usual work. It does not require total paralysis or complete
helplessness. Permanent disability, on the other hand, is a worker’s inability to perform his or her
job for more than one hundred twenty )120) days, or 240 days if the seafarer required fusther
medical attention justifying the extension of the temporary total disability perion, regardless of
whetheer or not he loses the use of any part of his body
 Zaldy C. Razonable Vs. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. and/or A.P. Moller A/S
G.R. No. 241674 June 10, 2020

FACTS

Respondents Maersk –Filipinas Crewing, Inc, and A.P. Moller A/S (A.P. Moller) are corporations
involved in the maritime industry, with Maersk acting as the manning agency of the shipper, A.P. Moller .

On march 24, 2015, Zaldy C. Razonable signed a Contract of Employment with A.P. Moller through
Maersk to work as an Ordinary Seaman on board the vessel M/V Maren Maersk. His employment for the
said vessel, covered by the Associated Marine Officers’ and Seamen’s Union of the Philippines and
Danish Shipowners’ Association (DSA) Collective Bargaining Agreeement (CBA) was for a duration of
six (6) months with a basic monthly salary of US$450.00

On May 6, 2015, after Razonable suddenly felt a click on his back accompanied by mild to moderate pain
while carrying a heavy ripper motor aboard the vessel, he was given first aid and was confined to his
cabin.

On June 11, 2015, he was brought to a hospital where he was diagnosed with “Prolapse Lumbar Disc L4
and L5-S1, back pain with Sciatica”. The foreign doctor also reported that Razonable needed further
treatment, might need surgery if there was no improvement, and should be advised light duty.

After Razonable’s repatriation on June 17, 2015 and upon his arrival in Manila, he was placed in
the care of company-esignated physicians at respondents’ accredited medical facility, Marine Medical
Services, where he was given a full pyhsical examination. Razonable was also referred to a company-
designated orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Rodolfo P. Bergonio, among others.

It was recommended that Razonable undergo Laminectomy L-4 L-5 and Disectomy L-5 fpr his back. The
recommended prcocedure was carried out by Dr. Bergonio on July 27, 2015 and razonable was thereafter
given a lumbar corset for back support, as well as continued physical therapy and rehabilitation until
October 9, 2015. Dr. Mylene Cruz- Balbon gave a follow up report. Dr. Bergonio gave a final disability
assessment, finding Razonable unfit for work with Disability Grade 11 – 1/3 loss of lifting power of the
trunk.

Respondents informed Razonable of the final disability assessment and offered to him to commensurate
disability benefits. However, Razonable refused and insisted on obtaining total and permanent disability
benefits. Thus, Razonable consulted another orthopedic expert, Dr. Manuel Fidel Martiga, who issued a
Medical Report concluding that Razonable was permanently unfit in any capacity to resume his sea duties
as a seaman.

In a letter, Razonable’s counsel informed the respondents about Dr. Martiga’s opinion and that (1)
Razonable was willing to be referred to a third doctor to confirm his present disablity which had
incapacitated him from resuminh work as a seaman; and (2) Razonable was claiming total and permanent
disability benefits in accordance with the law and the CBA. Respondents however, ignored this letter and
did not initiate the process of seeking the opinion of a third doctor as required by law. Thus, Razonable
filed a complaint before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), claiming total and
permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$80,000.00 as wel as the payment of moral damages
and attorney’s fees. Respondents, on the other hand, argued that Razonable’s claim was limited only to
Disability Grade 11 benefits.
ISSUES

Whether or not razonable is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.

RULING

Yes. Razonable is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.

As correctly pointed out by the CA, there were tro CBAs between AMOSUP-PTGWO-ITF and
DSA, one for Filipino ship officers and one for certain Filipino crew members called “ratinngs”. In the
CBA for officers, the covered employees are entitled to payment of a maximum of US$80,000.00 in ase
of disability, in the CBA for “ratings”, Filipino crew members are entitles to a maximum of
US$60,000.00 in case of disability.

However, the CA ruled that Razonable was only entitled to Grade 11 disability benefits
equivalent to US$7,465.00 and that there was no basis to award attorney’s fees in his favor. The court
disagrees with the CA on these points.

Instead of awarding partial disability benefits, the CA should have awarded total and permanent
disability benefits to Razonable in accordance with the POEA-SEC and the CBA pertaining to Filipino
Crew members or “ratings” because the company-designated physicians failed to issue a final and
definitive medical assessment.

WHEREFORE, Petition is GRANTED.