G.R. No.

207804 June 17, 2015

ACE NAVIGATION COMPANY and VELA INTERNATIONAL MARINE LIMITED vs.
SANTOS D. GARCIA

Facts:

Ace Navigation hired Garcia to work as a fitter for the vessel M/T Capricorn Star, owned by Vela
International, for a period of 8 months. Garcia boarded Vela International’s vessel, M/T Capricorn
Star on November 11, 2009. On February 9, 2010, Garcia claimed that while doing grinding work,
he slipped and fell, causing pain in his right arm, shoulder, and chest. As his condition persisted, he
requested his superior for a medical check-up at the nearest port of call. Upon arrival of the vessel
in Venezuela on May 17, 2010, Garcia underwent a medical consultation where he was diagnosed
with "Contracture Muscular Abnormality" and was recommended to be repatriated. Thus, on May
20, 2010, Garcia was repatriated back to the Philippines.

Following Garcia’s repatriation, he was initially diagnosed by company-designated physician Dr.

Salvador to be suffering from a work-related bilateral shoulder strain/sprain. It was also
discovered that he was suffering from bulges on his spine. Garcia continued receiving medical
treatment from another company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz, for the persistent pain he was
experiencing on his shoulder and posterior cervical spine. Garcia was then advised to undergo
operation to remove a disc in his spine, which he refused.

On November 8, 2010, Garcia filed a claim for total and permanent disability benefits against
petitioners before the NLRC. Garcia averred that he consulted an independent physician, Dr.
Escutin, who diagnosed him with a work-related total and permanent injury on his cervical spine,
rendering him unfit to be a seaman in whatever capacity.

Petitioners asserted that Garcia’s illnesses, i.e., ganglion cyst and nephrolithiasis, are not work-
related, and he was already declared fit to work on October 28, 2010 by his urologist. Petitioners
also pointed out that Dr. Cruz already recommended that Garcia be accorded disability rating of
"Grade 10 – Moderate stiffness or two-thirds (⅔) loss of motion of the neck, based on the POEA)
Schedule of Disability Grading." Lastly, petitioners maintained that the aforesaid findings of the
company-designated physician should be accorded utmost respect and consideration.

LA Ruling: The LA ruled in Garcia’s favour. The LA found that Garcia is entitled to permanent total
disability benefits given that his physical condition prevented him from resuming his trade for a
period of more than 120 days. The LA gave credence to the findings of the independent physician,
Dr. Escutin, over that of the company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz, opining that the assessment
and declarations of a company-designated physician should not prejudice Garcia’s claim for
disability benefits, considering that a seafarer may resort to other equally competent medical
professionals to prove the nature of his injury.

Dissatisfied, petitioners appealed to the NLRC.

NLRC Ruling: Contrary to the findings of the LA, the NLRC found that since the company-
designated physician, Dr. Cruz, assessed Garcia with a Grade 10 disability rating and that no other
disability rating appears on record, Garcia was, thus, bound thereto. The NLRC discredited the
declaration of the independent physician, Dr. Escutin, that Garcia was permanently unfit for sea
duty given that his disability report did not show that he conducted independent tests to verify his
physical condition, but merely based his review on the medical findings of petitioners’ designated
physicians. Garcia moved for reconsideration which the NLRC denied .Aggrieved, he filed a petition
for certiorari before the CA.

The CA reversed and set aside the ruling of the NLRC, and accordingly, reinstated that of the LA. The
CA agreed with the LA that Garcia’s inability to perform any gainful employment for a continuous
period of 120 days from his repatriation rendered his disability total and permanent.

Issue: Whether or not the CA correctly declared Garcia to be entitled to permanent total disability
benefits.

Ruling: NO.

The Court finds that the CA erred in ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in
ruling that Garcia is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, considering that the
same is supported by substantial evidence and in accord with prevailing law and jurisprudence.

A judicious review of the records reveals that Garcia was indeed unable to obtain any gainful
employment for more than 120 days after his repatriation; however, this fact does not ipso facto
render his disability total and permanent.

A temporary total disability only becomes permanent when so declared by the company physician
within the periods he is allowed to do so, or upon the expiration of the maximum 240-day medical
treatment period without a declaration of either fitness to work or the existence of a permanent
disability. In the present case, while the initial 120-day treatment or temporary total disability
period was exceeded, the company-designated doctor duly made a declaration well within the
extended 240-day period that the petitioner was fit to work.

The NLRC correctly relied on the findings of the company-designated physicians despite the
contrary findings of the independent physician. Jurisprudence holds that, under these
circumstances, the assessment of the company-designated physician should be given more
credence for having been arrived at after months of medical attendance and diagnosis, compared
with the assessment of a private physician done in one day on the basis of an examination or
existing medical records.

As a final note, it must be stressed that while the Court adheres to the principle of liberality in favor
of the seafarer, it cannot allow claims for compensation based on whims and caprices. When the
evidence presented negates compensability, the claim must fail, lest it causes injustice to the
employer.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC are
hereby REINSTATED.
 G.R. No. 207639 July 1, 2015
BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES, INC. and/or V-SHIP NORWAY and/or CYNTHIA C. MENDOZA,
vs.
CARLOS L. FLORES, JR.,

Facts:

Petitioner Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. hired respondent to work as a "Fitter" on board the vessel
Front Fighter owned by V-Ship Norway, for a period of 9 months. On April 15, 2009 and while on
board overhauling the relief valve of the vessel, a spring valve flew and hit the left side of
respondent's face, causing severe injuries to his teeth as well as multiple abrasions to his cheek,
lips, and nose. He was taken to a hospital in Singapore, where he was diagnosed to be suffering
from "blunt injuries to the left side of face" and was declared to be unfit to return to ship. After
undergoing an operation to treat his injury, respondent was repatriated to the Philippines on April
18, 2009 for further treatment.

Upon repatriation, respondent went to petitioners' accredited doctors for immediate care and
treatment who then made him undergo a series of tests for months. On July 17, 2009, Dr. Romero-
Dacanay, the company-designated physician, gave respondent an interim disability rating of Grade
7 (moderate residual or disorder).

On September 4, 2009, respondent sought a second opinion from an independent physician, Dr.
Saguin, who certified that because of his condition, he cannot work as a seafarer in any
capacity. Thus, on September 10, 2009, respondent filed a complaint before the NLRC against
petitioners for disability benefits, among others. This notwithstanding, respondent continued to
undergo treatment from the company-designated physician to treat his condition until October 12,
2009. Thereafter, respondent's treatment stopped and the company-designated physician did not
issue his final disability rating.

In defense, petitioners countered, inter alia, that respondent's complaint should be dismissed on
account of prematurity, considering that he was still undergoing treatment when he filed his
complaint.

The LA ruled in respondent's favour. The LA found respondent to be suffering from a permanent
total disability, given that from the time of his repatriation until the case was decided, there was no
declaration from either the company-designated or the independent physicians that respondent
was fit to work. According to the LA, the fact that respondent was never again summoned by
petitioners for another sea duty bolsters the notion that he is indeed permanently and totally
disabled.

Dissatisfied, petitioners appealed to the NLRC.

The NLRC affirmed the LA ruling. The NLRC held that the failure of the company-designated
physician to make an assessment of respondent's condition within the 120-day period from his
repatriation deemed his disability to be permanent and total, and thus, he must be given the
corresponding benefits in accordance with the CBA.

The CA affirmed the NLRC ruling.

Issue: Whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the NLRC ruling holding respondent to be entitled
to permanent total disability benefits.

Ruling: YES.

At the outset, the Court notes that petitioners correctly ascribed error on the part of the CA in
holding that respondent's inability to obtain gainful employment for more than 120 days after his
repatriation, and that the failure of the company-designated physician to declare him fit to work or
to give him a final disability rating within the same period ipso facto rendered respondent's
disability to be permanent and total.

A temporary total disability only becomes permanent when so declared by the company physician
within the periods he is allowed to do so, or upon the expiration of the maximum 240-day medical
treatment period without a declaration of either fitness to work or the existence of a permanent
disability. In the present case, while the initial 120-day treatment or temporary total disability
period was exceeded, the company-designated doctor duly made a declaration well within the
extended 240-day period that the petitioner was fit to work.

Be that as it may, the CA is nevertheless correct in holding that respondent is deemed to be

suffering from a permanent total disability. The company-designated physician neither issued to
respondent a fit-to-work certification nor a final disability rating on or before December 14, 2009,
the 240th day since respondent's repatriation. Case law instructs that, if after the lapse of the 240-
day period, the seafarer is still incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties and the company-
designated physician had not yet declared him fit to work or permanently disabled, whether total
or permanent, the conclusive presumption that the seafarer is totally and permanently disabled
arises. Perforce, it is but proper to hold that respondent was permanently and totally disabled, and
hence, entitled to the corresponding benefits stated under the CBA.