Brion vs.

Reyes Doctrine

I. Introduction

It has been consistently stated by the Supreme Court that there should be only one controlling
doctrine applicable to cases with similar issues. To avoid conflicting rulings of judges, a controlling
principle should be applied to give uniformity. It is basic in construction of laws that general rules on how
to interpret laws are stated. For Tax Laws: it mus be interpreted liberally against the taxpayer and strictly
against the government, and for the Agrarian Laws: interpreted liberally against beneficiaries. As the
trend goes, for Labor Laws interpreted liberally against laborer. Using this as an essential factor in
determining which doctine should be applied, a study of two doctrines will be done, giving a conclusion
derived from the general rule stated above.

To promote and monitor the overseas employment of Filipino workers is the primary purpose for
the creation of the POEA. Pursuant to its mandate, the agency issued a memorandum with the subject of
the standard terms and conditions governing the overseas employment of Filipino seafarers on board
ocean going ships. It contained provisions for the minimum requirement accepted by the POEA between
employer and employee. It gave an enumeration of the duties of employers and employees, explained
the individuals jobs along with time of work and the method of compensation, it also states the
procedures for other administrative process like filing grievances, disciplinary procedures, dispute
settlement procedures, adjudication and/or termination of employment and repatriation and others, a
schedule of disability or impediment for illness and disease, and such others which ensures their
protection.

The Court’s pronouncements in Vergara v. Hammonia case presented a restraint against the
indiscriminate reliance on Crystal Shipping such that a seafarer is immediately catapulted into filing a
complaint for total and permanent disability benefits after the expiration of 120 days, was stated by
Justice Brion in creating his doctrine that is heavily reliant on the POEA SEC, Sec 30, and then Justice
Reyes harmonized related laws which provided another principle as the appropriate remedy for
employers and employees in the maritime employment industry, it fine tuned the 120 day rule into a an
acceptable form of remedy.

These principes will be analyzed to derternine what effects they create and provide information
on which one is most germane to the objective of laws it was taken from. Ultimately ascertaining which
principle is best.

II. Application of Doctrines

On October 2008, this case has an issue that presented was two conflicting certifications from the
doctors of the opposing parties in the case of Vergara v. Hammonia. Justice Brion established that the
POEA SEC is the applicable law here, and explained that if a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees
with the assessment of the company designated physician, a third doctor may be jointly agreed by both
parties, to make an assessment and render his decision which shall be final and binding to both. That a
seafarers non-compliance of the mandated procedure for conflicting assessment should have been
dismissed for lack of binding third opinion.

Then explained that petitioner’s invoking Crystal Shipping v. Vergara cannot be applied in this
case because there was no declaration that the seafarer was fit to resume work beyond the prescribed
maximum period of 240 days, aptly given the ruling of permanent total disability for that case. The
above ruling cannot be lifted and immediately be declared the general rule for all cases in all context. As
in this case, there was a certification to return to work in the initial period of 120 days. The specific context
of the application should be considered, as in the application of all rulings and even of law and of the
implementing regulations. Thus, the Brion doctrine has been created.

The Kestrel vs. Munar case was the birth of the second doctrine, it was resolved by Justice
Reyes, the ruling given was the impediment should be characterized as partial and permanent not only
under Sec 32 of the POEA SEC but also under Article 191, 192, and 193 of the Labor Code and the
Amended Rules on Employee Compensation (AREC) implementing Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code.
The harmonization of all related laws will created the second principle called the Reyes doctrine.

The cause of respondents spine injury is work related, this was undisputed, the issue now was
how to classify such injury to properly determine the appropriate amount of benefits due to him, it aroused
when the the company-designated doctor failed to issue a certification for Mumar within the 120 day
period, eventhough it was issued within the maximum period the result was still unfit to return to work or
simply stated, absent a certification from the company-designated physician there was nothing to contest
and the law operates and gives the characterization for the disability as total and permanent.

This case was filed two years after the promulgation of the Vergara case, the Court said that the
prospective application of law applies here and that

The Vergara ruling removed the reliance Crystal Shipping’s ruling that a complaint fot total
permanent disability can be filled immediately after the lapse of the minimum period prescribed, because
a maximum period was also prescribed for the treatment and assessment.

The Philman vs. Cabanban case was about the claim for permanent total or partial disability
benefits of the seafarer on account of his medical condition, procedural lapses caused the tipping of favor
to rule favorably with the employers. Justice Brion, was assigned to hear the case and the natural result
would be the use of his doctrine. The decision he issued stated that, “In the absence of adequate
diagnostic tests and procedures and reasonable findings to support the assessments of the four private
physicians, their certifications on Armando’s alleged disability simply cannot be taken at face value,
particularly in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting the findings of Dr. Alegre. The rule is still that
whoever claims entitlement to disability benefits must prove such entitlement by substantial evidence. The
burden of proof rested on Armando to establish, by substantial evidence, the causal link between his work
as a 2nd mate and his alleged disability to serve as basis for the grant of relief. Unfortunately, he failed to
discharge this burden.”

March 2014, the Splash v. Ruizo case is assigned to Justice Brion , wherein the respondent was
diagnosed with a blocked right kidney by stone during the 9 month contract with Taiyo Sangyo Trading
and Marine Services. After repatriation and during the medical treatment, he filed an action for the
collection of disability benefits based on the alleged collective bargaining agreement between his union
and the employers.

The labor tribunals found Ruizo abandoned his treatment with the company-designated
physician, which is the reason why his claim for benefits were denied. The CA then awarded him
disability compensation, moral and exemplary damages on the basis of the CBA. In this case, the court
held that the 120 day rule cannot be used as a cure-all formula for all maritime compensation cases. It’s
application must depend on the circumstances of the cases, including the compliance with the parties’
contractual duties and obligations as laid down in the POEA SEC and or their CBA if there is one. There
was no showing the relevant provisions had been observed or complied with. Eventhough Ruizo reported
for examination and treatment, he cut short his sessions with the doctor. His explanation that he did not
return because he was told that his assessment will be forwarded to the petitioners is belied by the
doctor’s report.

The absence of a disability assessment by Dr. Cruz was not of the doctor’s making, but was due
to Ruizo’s refusal to undergo further treatment. In the absence of any disability assessment, claims for
disability benefits must fail for failure to comply.

Justice Reyes held that due to the failure of the company-designated doctor to issue a disability
rating within the prescribed period, a conclusive presumption that the petitioner is totally and permanently
disabled arose. As a result thereof, the petitioner is not legally compelled to observe the procedure laid
down in Section 20-B(3) of the POEA SEC relative to the resort to a third doctor, the Court finds the
petitioner entitled to total and permanent disability compensation. As to the amount, the Schedule of
Disability Allowances found in Section 32 of the POEA SEC is applicable. Under the said section, a
seafarer given a Grade 1 Disability assessment.

Eyana vs. PTC is a case under the Reyes doctrine with the proceedings held on January 2015,
Section 32 of POEA SEC governs this case wherein the Court in this case is entitled to a total permanent
disability compensation of Grade 1.

The Court noted the similaraties of this case with Kestrel where the competence of the
company-designated doctor was not assailed, neither was there a disability assessment after the lapse of
the 120 day period from the company-designated physician, as well as the filing of the complaint was
before the Vergara promulgation, the same principle was applied in this case which resulted to a decision
that there is no need to further delve into the assessments given by either doctor because the was
already a lapse in the prescribed period for their issuance therefore the conclusive presumption is the
petitioner is totally and permanently disabled and not legally compelled to observe the procedure laid
down in Section 20-B(3) of the POEA SEC or the resort to a third doctor rule.
 A partial granting on the petition was issued, the decision of the CA was set aside, ordering the
local manning agency and the foreign employer both liable for the claim of disability benefits, attorney’s
fees and the proper amount of interest to be imposed.

On February 2015, the Maunlad v. Camoral case, treatment for acquired injury from work has
extended beyond the primary period has prescribed, both doctors agreed that due to his condition
hecould no longer return to his job as an ice carver, because he has lost his pre-injury capacity therefore
unfit to work back at his previous occupation as a seafarer.

The fact that Camoral was unfit to work back at his previous occupation as a seafarer was
undisputed, the issue here is whether the grading system provided by the petitioners for Camoral’s
impediment must control. The court ruled negative, and empahsized the note made by the NLRC on the
medical report and disability assessment submitted by the petitioners after more than 120 days of
treatment and rehabilitation did not show how the partial permanent disability assessment was arrived at.
It simply stated he was suffering from impediment Grade 10 disability, but without any evidence taht in
fact only one third limitation of motion of the neck or moderate stiffness had affected Camoral. But even
without this observation, it is not disputed that Camoral was declared unfit by both petitioner’s and
Camoral’s doctors to return to his previous occupation declaring his permanent and total disability.

In the case of PTC v. Cristion, the issue is whether the Court of Appeals is correct in finding
Cristino’s illness as work related and, therefore compensable pursuant to the POEA SEC. Petitioners
assails the claim of work related illness because it is not included in the schedule of illness contained in
the contract.

In this case, the court held that, It has been repeatedly emphasized that for illness to be
compensable, the nature of employment need not be the lone reason for the illness suffered by the
seafarer. Just a reasonable connection, and not absolute certainty, between the danger of contracting the
illness and its aggravation resulting from the working conditions is enough to sustain its compensability.

There was no reason to deviate form the conclusions arrived at by the Court of Appeals and the
NLRC, affirmation of ruling for compensibility of respondents permanent disability plus the award of
disability allowance plus illness allowance was awarded to Cristion.

III. Analysis and Comparison

Justice Brion has applied the POEA SEC, Section 32 (grading system for disabilities schedule of
disabilities, impediments and injuries), and a CBA if available, for those actions for claim of benefits
between seafarers and their employers when he was ponente, rationalizing that these provisions were
specifically created to govern these relationships therefore they should be controlling for such issues he
was task to adjudicate. Procedural lapses was the common factor that caused forfeiture of claims of the
seafarers.
 Justice Reyes, on the other hand, harmoniously applied provisions from, Article 191, 192 and 193
of the Labor Code, Rule X, Section 2 of the Rules and Regulations implementing Book IV of the Labor
Code and POEA Standard Employment Contract whose Section 20 (3), stating that laws of similar nature
should be applied in harmony. The application of these laws has consistently ruled mostly in favor of the
seafarers. The common cause unfavorable ruling was the acts of the company-designated physicians,
that consistently gave assessments, declarations and issuances in favor of the companies which was a
natural act of loyalty on their part.

IV. Conclusion

.Trough the analysis of the doctrines along with the cases they were applied to, the conclusion is
clear; the Brion doctrine is favorable to employers which is obvious from the rulings he made and Reyes’
favors the laborers, noticeable from his ponentes.

The general rule in interpreting Labor Laws is that construction is liberally applied to the laborer
and strictly against the employer, in applying the stated rule, the Reyes doctrine has proven it’s liberal
application of the laws. It yeilded positive results for claims of benefits for seamen. Mere procedural
lapses should not be the cause forfeiture of benefits for seafarer, which seems too small a reason for
forfeiture, because the primary issue is compensation for benefit for sickness, death or inability to work af
the laborer, this affects the rest of his capability to work until his retirement.

The Reyes doctrine is the principle germane to the objectives of the law it was taken from and the
applicable cases with same issues must be governed by this principle.