G.R. No. 215551. September 16, 2015.* seaman is on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to work.

He
receives his basic wage during this period until he is declared fit to work
JAKERSON G. GARGALLO, petitioner, vs.DOHLE SEAFRONT or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the company to be
CREWING (MANILA), INC., DOHLE MANNING AGENCIES, INC., and permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is defined under the
MR. MAYRONILO B. PADIZ, respondents. [POEA-SEC] and by applicable Philippine laws. If the 120 days initial
Labor Law; Seafarers; Disability Benefits; The entitlement of overseas period is exceeded and no such declaration is made because the
seafarers to disability benefits is a matter governed, not only by medical seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary
findings, but also by law and contract.—The entitlement of overseas total disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240
seafarers to disability benefits is a matter governed, not only by medical days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this
findings, but also by law and contract. The pertinent statutory provisions period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists.
are Articles 197 to 199 (formerly Articles 191 to 193) of the Labor Code in The seaman may of course also be declared fit to work at any time
relation to Section 2(a), Rule X of the Rules implementing Title II, Book IV such declaration is justified by his medical condition. x x x x As we
of the said Code. On the other hand, the relevant contracts are: (a) the outlined above, a temporary total disability only becomes
POEA-SEC, which is a standard set of provisions that is deemed permanent when so declared by the company physician within the
incorporated in every seafarer’s contract of employment; (b) the CBA, if periods he is allowed to do so, or upon the expiration of the
any; and (c) the employment agreement between the seafarer and his maximum 240-day medical treatment period without a declaration
employer. In this case, petitioner executed his employment contract with of either fitness to work or the existence of a permanent disability.
respondents during the effectivity of the 2010 POEA-SEC; hence, its In the present case, while the initial 120-day treatment or temporary total
provisions are applicable and should govern their relations, and not the disability period was exceeded, the company-designated doctor duly made
2000 POEA-SEC as held by the CA. a declaration well within the extended 240-day period that the petitioner
Same; Same; Same; Permanent Total Disability; It is only upon the was fit to work.
lapse of two hundred forty (240) days, or when so declared by the company- Liability of Corporate Officers; Settled is the rule that in the absence
designated physician, that a seafarer may be deemed totally and of malice and bad faith, or a specific provision of law making a corporate
permanently disabled.—In the recent case of Ace Navigation Company v. officer liable, such officer cannot be made personally liable for corporate
Garcia, 759 SCRA 274 (2015), citing Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime liabilities.—The Court finds no basis to hold respondent Dohle Seafront
Services, Inc. (Vergara), 567 SCRA 610 (2008), the Court reiterated that President Padiz, solidarily liable with respondents Dohle Manning and
the company-designated physician is given an additional 120 days, or a Dohle Seafront for the payment of the monetary awards granted to
total of 240 days from repatriation, to provide the seafarer further petitioner, absent any showing that he had acted beyond the scope of his
treatment and, thereafter, make a declaration as to the nature of the authority or with malice. Settled is the rule that in the absence of malice
latter’s disability. Thus, it is only upon the lapse of 240 days, or when so and bad faith, or a specific provision of law making a corporate officer
declared by the company-designated physician, that a seafarer may be liable, such officer cannot be made personally liable for corporate
deemed totally and permanently disabled, viz.: As these provisions liabilities.
operate, the seafarer, Attorney’s Fees; It is settled that where an employee is forced to litigate
_______________ and incur expenses to protect his right and interest, he is

* FIRST DIVISION.
90
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
89
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc.
VOL. 771, SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 89 entitled to an award of attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%)
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc. of the total award at the time of actual payment.—Anent petitioner’s claim
upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the company-designated for attorney’s fees, while respondents have not been shown to have acted
physician within three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis and treatment. in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy petitioner’s demands,
For the duration of the treatment but in no case to exceed 120 days, the it is settled that where an employee is forced to litigate and incur expenses
to protect his right and interest, he is entitled to an award of attorney’s medical facility in Sauda, Norway where he was diagnosed and treated for
fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total award at the time of actual “L72 BREAK IN [the] LOWER LEFT ARM,” and later found to have a
payment. “RADIUS SHAFT FRACTURE OF THE LEFT [FOREARM],” which will
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the require urgent corrective surgery. He was then referred to Haugesund
Court of Appeals. Hospital for further examination, and likewise recommended for
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. repatriation.8
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: Following his repatriation on March 11, 2012, petitioner was seen by
the company-designated physician, Doctor Nicomedes G. Cruz, M.D. (Dr.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Cruz), and was immediately confined at the Manila Doctors Hospital. As
Decision2 dated June 10, 2014 and the Resolution3 dated November 21, his x-ray showed that he had “comminuted displaced fracture of proximal
2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 130266, which third of the left radius,”9 petitioner was referred to the company-
reversed and set aside the Resolutions dated March 25, 20134 and May 15, designated orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Cirilo Tacata, M.D., who performed an
20135 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC Open Reduction and Internal Fixation surgery
No. 01000062-13/NLRC NCR No. 07-11019-12, and dismissed petitioner _______________
Jakerson G. Gargallo’s (petitioner) claim for permanent total disability
benefits. 6 Rollo, p. 15.
_______________ 7 See Accident/Incident Report Summary, CA Rollo, p. 144.
Id., at pp. 65-66.
1 Rollo, pp. 39-63. 8 See Medical Examination Report; id., at pp. 254-255.
2 Id., at pp. 14-34. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales- 9 See medical observation dated March 11, 2012; id., at p. 145.
Sison, with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Edwin D.
Sorongon, concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 36-37. 92
4 CA Rollo, pp. 41-56. Penned by Commissioner Teresita D. Castillon- 92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lora, with Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and Commissioner
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc.
Erlinda T. Agus, concurring.
on him.10 He was discharged on March 19, 2012,11 but was on continued
5 Id., at pp. 73-74.
treatment as an out-patient12 from March 2213 to September 21, 2012.14
On September 21, 2012, petitioner returned to Dr. Cruz for his regular
checkup. After medical evaluation, the latter issued a Medical Report 15 of
91
even date declaring petitioner “fit to work.”16 Dissatisfied, petitioner
VOL. 771, SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 91 consulted an independent doctor, Dr. Cesar H. Garcia (Dr. Garcia), who
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc. issued an Orthopedic Surgeon’s Report17 dated October 2, 2012, opining,
The Facts instead, that he was unfit to work as a seaman as of that time.
Petitioner was hired by respondent Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Meanwhile, or on July 20, 2012, while still undergoing treatment with
Inc. (Dohle Seafront), in behalf of Dohle Manning Agencies, Inc. (Dohle the company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz, and without having
Manning), as a wiper onboard the vessel “MV WIDAR” with a basic consulted the independent doctor, Dr. Garcia, petitioner filed a
monthly salary of $516.00. Prior to his deployment, petitioner underwent complaint18 against respondents Dohle Manning, Dohle Seafront, and the
a preemployment medical examination, and was declared fit to work. He latter’s president, Mayronilo B. Padiz (Padiz; collectively, respondents),
then boarded the vessel on September 14, 2011.6 seeking to recover permanent total disability benefits pursuant to
On February 28, 2012, while petitioner was lifting heavy loads of lube the unsigned International Transport Workers’ Federation Standard
oil drum, the vessel rolled slightly, which triggered the drum to swing Collective Bargaining Agreement19 (ITF CBA) dated January 1, 2012, as
uncontrollably, and, in consequence, caused petitioner to lose his balance well as compensatory, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees
and fall on deck, with his left arm hitting the floor first, bearing his full before the NLRC, National
body weight.7 On March 8, 2012, petitioner was referred to a portside _______________
 10 See medical observation dated March 13, 2012; id., at p. 146. See 20 Filed on October 17, 2012. Id., at pp. 170-188.
also Record of Operation dated March 13, 2012; id., at p. 258. 21 Id., at pp. 208-209.
11 See Medical Abstract/Discharge Summary dated March 19, 22 Id., at pp. 178-185.
2012; id., at p. 260. 23 See Position Paper for respondents filed on October 17, 2012; id., at
12 See various Medical Reports; id., at pp. 148-164. pp. 89-113.
13 Rollo, p. 16. 24 Id., at p. 100.
14 Petitioner’s treatment was in progress from March 22, 2012 to 25 Id., at p. 106.
September 7, 2012 (see various Medical Reports; CA Rollo, pp. 148-163), 26 Id., at p. 108.
until he was declared fit to work on September 21, 2012 (see Medical Report
dated September 21, 2012; CA Rollo, p. 164).
15 Id., at p. 164. 94
16 See Rollo, pp. 16-17. 94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
17 Id., at pp. 261-263.
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc.
18 Id., at pp. 118-120.
The Labor Arbiter’s Ruling
19 Id., at pp. 192-251.
In a Decision27 dated November 27, 2012, the Labor Arbiter (LA)
ordered respondents, jointly and severally, to pay petitioner
93
US$156,816.00 or its peso equivalent as permanent total disability
VOL. 771, SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 93 benefits, plus ten percent (10%) thereof as attorney’s fees.
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc. The LA gave more credence to the medical report of petitioner’s
Capital Region (NCR), docketed as NLRC-NCR-OFW-Case No. (M) 07- independent doctor, Dr. Garcia, which was based on his personal
11019-12. perception of petitioner’s actual medical condition, as opposed to the
In his Position Paper20 dated October 5, 2012, petitioner claimed, inter medical report of the company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz, who was
alia, that he is entitled to permanent total disability benefits, considering not the physiatrist or the orthopedic surgeon who actually treated and
that: (a) he has remained permanently unfit to perform further sea service monitored petitioner’s injury.28 The LA further held that since petitioner
despite major surgery and further treatment; (b) his permanent total has suffered an injury on his left forearm and has undergone operation,
unfitness to work was duly certified by his chosen physician, Dr. Garcia, said forearm is not as stable and strong as it was before the injury, and no
whose certification prevails over the palpably self-serving and biased business-minded manning agency would accept him should he reapply as
assessment of the company-designated physicians; and (c) his medical seafarer.29
condition falls under the Permanent Medical Unfitness Clause 21 of the ITF Aggrieved, respondents appealed30 to the NLRC.31
CBA that entitles him to 100% compensation.22
For their part, respondents countered23that the fit to work findings of The NLRC’s Ruling
the company-designated physicians must prevail over that of petitioner’s
independent doctor, considering that: (a) they were the ones who In a Resolution32 dated March 25, 2013, the NLRC affirmed the LA
continuously treated and monitored petitioner’s medical condition; 24 and ruling, but reduced the award of disability benefits to US$125,000.00.
(b) petitioner failed to comply with the agreed procedure under the The NLRC doubted the credibility of the September 21, 2012 fit to work
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment assessment of Dr. Cruz, considering the lack of finding as to whether the
Contract (POEA-SEC) on the joint appointment by the parties of a third pain persistently felt by peti-
doctor whose findings shall be considered as final with respect to the degree _______________
of his disability.25Respondents further averred that petitioner has no cause
of action against them, and the filing of the disability claim was premature, 27 Id., at pp. 57-72. Penned by LA Lilia S. Savari.
since he was still undergoing medical treatment within the allowable 240- 28 Id., at pp. 68-69.
day period at the time of the filing of the complaint.26 29 Id., at p. 70.
_______________
 30 See Notice of Appeal with Memorandum of Appeal dated December
12, 2012; id., at pp. 300-336. 96
31 The NLRC case was re-docketed as NLRC LAC No. 01-000062-13. 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
32 CA Rollo, pp. 41-56.
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc.
writ of execution42 on August 28, 2013 in the case, constraining
respondents to settle the full judgment award.43
95
VOL. 771, SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 95 The CA’s Ruling
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc.
tioner had subsided, gone, or persisted. On the other hand, the NLRC gave In a Decision44 dated June 10, 2014, the CA granted
more credence to the October 2, 2012 Report of petitioner’s independent respondents’ certiorari petition and thereby dismissed petitioner’s
doctor, noting that it described petitioner’s range of motion to be with complaint for disability benefits.
“[s]lightly limited pronation and suppination muscle strength = 70% of The CA ruled that petitioner’s claim for permanent total disability
maximum strength,”33 which could have been brought about by physical benefits was premature, considering that at the time of the filing of the
impossibility or by the subsisting pain felt by petitioner. 34 complaint: (a) petitioner was still under medical treatment by the
While acknowledging that the inability to raise arm more than halfway company-designated physicians; (b) no medical assessment has yet been
from horizontal to perpendicular only has a disability grade of 11 or a issued by the company-designated physicians as to his fitness or disability
14.93% disability rating under Section 32, Shoulder and Arm, Item No. 12 since the allowable 240-day treatment period during which he is considered
of the 2000 POEA-SEC, the NLRC adjudged petitioner to 100% under temporary total disability has not yet lapsed; and (c) petitioner has
compensation at US$125,000.00,35 pursuant to the provisions of the 2008- not yet consulted his own doctor, hence, had no sufficient basis to prove his
2011 ver.di IMEC IBF CBA36 (IBF CBA) presented by respondents, which incapacity.45
entitles any seafarer assessed at less than 50% disability to 100% Moreover, the CA gave more credence to the fit to work assessment of
compensation when certified as permanently unfit for further sea duties. the company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz, who treated and closely
It noted that the IBF CBA bore the signatures of the parties thereto, as monitored petitioner’s condition, over the contrary declaration of
opposed to the ITF CBA presented by petitioner that was not shown to have petitioner’s independent doctor, Dr. Garcia, who attended to him only once,
been duly adopted.37 and in fact, merely limited himself to a review of petitioner’s medical
Respondents moved for reconsideration 38which was denied in a history and a reiteration of the diagnoses of the company-designated
Resolution39 dated May 15, 2013. Undeterred, they filed a petition physicians, without conducting any medical or confirmatory tests or
for certiorari40 before the CA. procedures to refute their findings.46 It further noted that petitioner only
While the certiorari petition was pending before the CA, the NLRC sought Dr. Garcia’s medical opinion two (2)
issued an entry of judgment41 on July 1, 2013 and a _______________
_______________
42 Id., at pp. 399-402.
33 Id., at p. 319. 43 See Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment by Virtue of a Writ of
34 Id., at pp. 49, 51-52. Execution issued by NLRC-NCR Cashier Esleen D. Fontnilla on October 1,
35 Id., at pp. 52-54. 2013; id., at pp. 459-460.
36 Id., at pp. 122-143. 44 Rollo, pp. 14-34.
37 Id., at pp. 53-54. 45 Id., at pp. 27-28.
38 See motion for reconsideration dated April 12, 2013; id., at pp. 75- 46 Id., at pp. 30-32.
85.
39 Id., at pp. 73-74.
40 Filed on June 7, 2013. Id., at pp. 3-40. 97
41 Id., at p. 380. VOL. 771, SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 97
 Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc. temporary total disability shall for each day of such a disability or
months after the filing of the complaint,47 and that the latter did not fraction thereof be paid by the System an income benefit equivalent to
unequivocally state that petitioner was totally and permanently unfit to ninety percent of his average daily salary credit, subject to the following
work, but only declared him unfit to work at that time, without giving any conditions: the daily income benefit shall not be less than Ten Pesos
disability grading.48 nor more than Ninety Pesos, nor paid for a continuous period longer
The CA likewise deleted the award of attorney’s fees, holding the same than one hundred twenty days, except as otherwise provided for in the
to be unwarranted in the absence of showing of bad faith and malice on the Rules, and the System shall be notified of the injury or sickness. x x x.
part of respondents.49 x x x x.
Undaunted, petitioner sought reconsideration,50 which was, however, Art. 198. Permanent Total Disability.—(a) Under such regulations
denied in a Resolution51 dated November 21, 2014; hence, this petition. as the Commission may approve, any employee under this Title who
contracts sickness or sustains an injury resulting in his permanent total
The Issue Before the Court disability shall, for each month until his death, be paid by the System
during such a disability, an amount equivalent to the monthly income
The core issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly ruled that benefit, plus ten percent thereof for each dependent child, but not
the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting petitioner’s exceeding five, beginning with the youngest and without
claim for permanent total disability benefits. substitution: Provided, That the monthly income benefit shall be the new
amount of the monthly benefit for all covered pensioners, effective upon
The Court’s Ruling approval of this Decree.
xxxx
The petition lacks merit. (c) The following disabilities shall be deemed total and permanent:
The entitlement of overseas seafarers to disability benefits is a matter (1) Temporary total disability lasting continuously for more
governed, not only by medical findings, but also by law and contract. 52 The than one hundred twenty days, except as otherwise provided for
pertinent statutory provisions are Articles 197 to 199 53 (formerly Articles in the Rules;
191 to 193) of the La- xxxx
_______________ Art. 199. Permanent Partial Disability.—(a) Under such regulations
as the Commission may approve, any employee under this Title who
47 Id., at p. 28. contracts sickness or sustains an injury resulting in permanent partial
48 Id., at p. 31. disability shall for each month not exceeding the period designated herein
49 Id., at p. 33. be paid by the System during such a disability an income benefit equivalent
50 See motion for reconsideration dated July 7, 2014; CA Rollo, pp. to the income benefit for permanent total disability.
547-556. x x x x (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
51 Rollo, pp. 36-37. 54 Rule X
52 Jebsen Maritime, Inc. v. Ravena, G.R. No. 200566, September 17, TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY
2014, 735 SCRA 494, 507. xxxx
53 Art. 197. Temporary Total Disability.—(a) Under such
regulations as the Commission may approve, any employee under this Title
who sustains an injury or contracts sickness resulting in 99
VOL. 771, SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 99
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc.
98 plementing Title II, Book IV of the said Code.55 On the other hand, the
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED relevant contracts are: (a) the POEA-SEC, which is a standard set of
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc. provisions that is deemed incorporated in every seafarer’s contract of
bor Code in relation to Section 2(a),54 Rule X of the Rules im- employment; (b) the CBA, if any; and (c) the employment agreement
_______________ between the seafarer and his employer.56 In this case, petitioner executed
his employment contract with respondents during the effectivity of the computed from the time he signed off until he is declared fit to work
2010 POEA-SEC; hence, its provisions are applicable and should govern or the degree of disability has been assessed by the company-
their relations, and not the 2000 POEA-SEC as held by the CA.57 designated physician. The period within which the seafarer shall be
Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, which enumerates the duties of entitled to his sickness allowance shall not exceed 120 days. x x x.
an employer to his employee who suffers a work-related injury or illness xxxx
during the term of his employment, pertinently provides: For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS employment medical examination by a company-designated
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR physician within three working days upon his return except when
ILLNESS he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice
_______________ to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. In
the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly
Sec. 2. Period of Entitlement.—(a) The income benefit shall be paid to the company-designated physician specifically on the dates as
beginning on the first day of such disability. If caused by an injury or prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed to by
sickness it shall not be paid longer than 120 consecutive days except the seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory
where such injury or sickness still requires medical attendance reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to
beyond 120 days but not to exceed 240 days from onset of disability claim the above benefits.
in which case benefit for temporary total disability shall be If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the
paid.However, the System may declare the total and permanent assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the
status at any time after 120 days of continuous temporary total Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision
disability as may be warranted by the degree of actual loss or
impairment of physical or mental functions as determined by the
System. 101
x x x x (Emphasis supplied) VOL. 771, SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 101
55 Otherwise known as the “Amended Rules on Employees’
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc.
Compensation” (June 1, 1987).
shall be final and binding on both parties. (Emphasis supplied)
56 Supra note 52 at pp. 507-508.
57 See Rollo, p. 24.
In the recent case of Ace Navigation Company v.
Garcia,58 citing Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.59(Vergara),
the Court reiterated that the company-designated physician is given an
100
additional 120 days, or a total of 240 days from repatriation, to provide the
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED seafarer further treatment and, thereafter, make a declaration as to the
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc. nature of the latter’s disability. Thus, it is only upon the lapse of 240 days,
The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work- or when so declared by the company-designated physician, that a seafarer
related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as may be deemed totally and permanently disabled, viz.:
follows: As these provisions operate, the seafarer, upon sign-off from his
xxxx vessel, must report to the company-designated physician within
2. x x x [I]f after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis and treatment. For the
attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided duration of the treatment but in no case to exceed 120 days, the
at cost to the employer until such time he is declared fit or the degree seaman is on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to
of his disability has been established by the company-designated work. He receives his basic wage during this period until he is
physician. declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by
3. In addition to the above obligation of the employer to provide the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his
medical attention, the seafarer shall also receive sickness allowance condition is defined under the [POEA-SEC] and by applicable
from his employer in an amount equivalent to his basic wage Philippine laws. If the 120 days initial period is exceeded and
 no such declaration is made because the seafarer requires 60 See Ace Navigation Company v. Garcia, supra note 58, emphases
further medical attention, then the temporary total and underscoring in the original.
disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 61 On pronation and suppination of the left arm despite good to fair
days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within grip. See 17th Medical Report dated June 29, 2012; CA Rollo,
this period that a permanent partial or total disability p. 159.
already exists. The seaman may of course also be declared fit 62 On elevation of the left upper extremity. SeeMedical Report dated
to work at any time such declaration is justified by his September 7, 2012; id., at p. 163.
medical condition.
xxxx
_______________ 103
VOL. 771, SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 103
58 See G.R. No. 207804, June 17, 2015, 759 SCRA 274.
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc.
59 588 Phil. 895, 912-913; 567 SCRA 610, 628 (2008).
Moreover, petitioner failed to comply with the prescribed procedure
under the aforequoted Section 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC on the joint
appointment by the parties of a third doctor, in case the seafarer’s personal
102
doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician’s fit to work
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED assessment. The IBF CBA similarly outlined the procedure, viz.:
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc. 25.2 The disability suffered by the seafarer shall be determined
As we outlined above, a temporary total disability only becomes by a doctor appointed by the Company. If a doctor appointed
permanent when so declared by the company physician within the by or on behalf of the seafarer disagrees with the assessment,
periods he is allowed to do so, or upon the expiration of the a third doctor may be nominated jointly between the
maximum 240-day medical treatment period without a declaration Company and the Union and the decision of this doctor shall
of either fitness to work or the existence of a permanent disability. be final and binding on both parties.
In the present case, while the initial 120-day treatment or temporary total xxxx
disability period was exceeded, the company-designated doctor duly made 25.4 A seafarer whose disability, in accordance with 25.2 above
a declaration well within the extended 240-day period that the petitioner is assessed at 50% or more shall, for the purpose of this
was fit to work.60 paragraph, be regarded as permanently unfit for further sea
service in any capacity and be entitled to 100% compensation.
It is undisputed that petitioner was repatriated on March 11, 2012 and Furthermore, any seafarer assessed at less than 50%
immediately subjected to medical treatment. Despite the lapse of the initial disability but certified as permanently unfit for further sea
120-day period on July 9, 2012, such treatment continued due to persistent service in any capacity by the Company-nominated doctor,
pain complained of by petitioner,61 which was observed until his 180th day shall also be entitled to 100% compensation. Any
of treatment on September 7, 2012.62 In this relation, the CA correctly disagreement as to the assessment or entitlement shall be
ruled that the filing of the complaint for permanent total disability benefits resolved in accordance with clause 25.2 above.63
on July 20, 2012 was premature, and should have been dismissed for lack
of cause of action, considering that at that time: (a) petitioner was still In the recent case of Veritas Maritime Corporation v. Gepanaga,
under the medical treatment of the company-designated physicians within Jr.,64 involving an almost identical provision of the CBA, the Court
the allowable 240-day period; (b) the latter had not yet issued any reiterated the well-settled rule that the seafarer’s noncompliance with the
assessment as to his fitness or disability; and (c) petitioner had not yet mandated conflict-resolution procedure under the POEA-SEC and the CBA
secured any assessment from his chosen physician, whom he consulted militates against his claims, and results in the affirmance of the fit to work
only more than two (2) months thereafter, or on October 2, 2012. certification of the company-designated physician, thus:
_______________ _______________

63 Id., at pp. 130-131.

 64 See G.R. No. 206285, February 4, 2015, 750 SCRA 104. Verily, petitioner’s failure to observe the conflict-resolution procedure
under the POEA-SEC and the CBA provided a sufficient ground for the
denial of his claim for permanent total disability benefits. Considering,
104 however, the undisputed fact that petitioner still needed medical
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED treatment beyond the initial 120-day treatment period, which lasted for
194 days from his repatriation as found by the CA, 67 he is entitled to the
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc.
income benefit for temporary total disability68 provided under Section 2(a),
The [POEA-SEC] and the CBA clearly provide that when a seafarer
Rule X of the Rules implementing Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code,
sustains a work-related illness or injury while onboard the vessel, his
during the extended period of treatment or for 194 days, computed from
fitness or unfitness for work shall be determined by the company-
petitioner’s repatriation on March 11, 2012 until September 21, 2012 when
designated physician. If the physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees
he last visited the company-designated physician.
with the company-designated physician’s assessment, the opinion of a
However, the Court finds no basis to hold respondent Dohle Seafront
third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer
President Padiz, solidarily liable with respondents Dohle Manning and
to be the decision final and binding on them.
Dohle Seafront for the payment of the monetary awards granted to
Thus, while petitioner had the right to seek a second and even a third
petitioner, absent any showing that he had acted beyond the scope of his
opinion, the final determination of whose decision must prevail must be
authority or with malice. Settled is the rule that in the absence of malice
done in accordance with an agreed procedure. Unfortunately, the petitioner
and bad faith, or a specific provision of law making a corporate officer
did not avail of this procedure; hence, we have no option but to declare that
liable, such officer cannot be made personally liable for corporate
the company-designated doctor’s certification is the final determination
liabilities.69
that must prevail. x x x.65
Finally, anent petitioner’s claim for attorney’s fees,70 while respondents
have not been shown to have acted in gross and evident bad faith in
In any event, the findings of the company-designated physicians should
refusing to satisfy petitioner’s demands, it is settled that where an
prevail, considering that they examined, diagnosed, and treated petitioner
employee is forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his right and
from his repatriation on March 11, 2012 until he was assessed fit to work
interest, he is entitled
after 194 days of treatment on September 21, 2012; whereas the
_______________
independent physician, Dr. Garcia, examined petitioner only once on
October 2, 2012, more than two (2) months after he filed his claim for
67 Rollo, p. 22.
permanent and total disability benefits before the NLRC on July 20, 2012.
68 See New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. v. Despabeladeras, G.R.
Case law holds that, under these circumstances, the assessment of the
No. 209201, November 19, 2014, 741 SCRA 375; Magsaysay Maritime
company-designated physician should be given more credence for having
Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 191903,
been arrived at after months of medical attendance and diagnosis,
June 19, 2013, 699 SCRA 197, 215.
compared to the assessment of a private physician done only in one (1) day
69 See Eyana v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No.
on the basis of an examination or existing medical records.66
193468, January 28, 2015, 748 SCRA 429.
_______________
70 Rollo, p. 62.
65 Id., citing Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., supra note
59 at p. 914; pp. 629-630.
106
66 See Ace Navigation Company v. Garcia, supra note 58.
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc.
105 to an award of attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total
VOL. 771, SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 105 award at the time of actual payment.71
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 10,
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc.
2014 and the Resolution dated November 21, 2014 of the Court of Appeals
in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 130266, dismissing petitioner Jakerson G. Gargallo’s
claim for permanent total disability benefits are hereby AFFIRMED.
However, respondents Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc. and Dohle
Manning Agencies, Inc. are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay
petitioner income benefit for one hundred ninety-four (194) days, plus ten
percent (10%) of the total amount of the income benefit as attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin and Perez,
JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.—Article 212(e) of the Labor Code does not state that corporate
officers are personally liable for the unpaid salaries or separation pay of
employees of the corporation — the liability of corporate officers for
corporate debts remains governed by Section 31 of the Corporation Code.
(Solidbank Corporation vs. Gamier, 634 SCRA 554 [2010])
In Palisoc v. Easways Marine, Inc., 532 SCRA 585 (2007), we said that
whether the Labor Code’s provision on permanent total disability applies
to seafarers is already a settled matter. (Magsaysay Maritime Corporation
vs. Lobusta, 664 SCRA 134 [2012])

——o0o—