Jesus Vergara vs. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 3

Jesus Vergara vs. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.

G.R. No. 172933


October 6, 2008

Facts:

On April 4, 2000, herein petitioner was hired as a pumpman pursuant to a nine-month


contract by respondent Hammonia Maritime Services in behalf of its foreign principal,
Atlantic Marine Ltd, on board the vessel British Valour, with a monthly salary of
US$624.00. Petitioner is a member of AMOSUP, a labor union for seamen who had a
collective bargaining agreement with Atlantic Marine.

Sometime in August 2000, while petitioner was attending to a defective hydraulic valve,
he felt the sensation of losing vision on his right eye. He told the ship captain that he was
seeing black dots and floating figures in front of his affected eye, which had developed
into a gradual vision loss. Because of that, petitioner was sent to the ship’s hospital where
he was found out to be suffering from glaucoma. He was given eye drops to treat his
affected eye. Upon arriving at Port Galveston in Texas, herein petitioner went out to
consult a physician about his condition. After the consultation, the physician told
petitioner that he has vitreal hemorrhage and that he should see an ophthalmologist once
he is repatriated in the Philippines.

On September 5, 2000, herein petitioner was sent back to the Philippines for medical
treatment. Dr. Lim, the company-designated physician of the Marine Medical Services
of the Metropolitan Hospital affirmed the diagnosis of the physician from Texas. Dr. Lim
had referred herein petitioner to an ophthalmologist at the Chinese General Hospital.
There, petitioner’s affected eye was subjected to focal laser treatment on November 13,
2000. On January 21, 2001, the ophthalmologist assured the petitioner that he may
resume his duties as he is now fit to work. However, petitioner sought the second opinion
of another ophthalmologist as he continued to experience gradual vision loss despite the
treatment. The new ophthalmologist told petitioner that he is not fit for work due to his
condition. Dissatisfied, herein petitioner had again approached another ophthalmologist
that is not commissioned by the company, a certain Dr. Vicaldo, for examination. After
the check-up, Dr. Vicaldo told petitioner that his condition is tantamount to a permanent
partial disability.

Because of this, petitioner had demanded from respondent for the payment of disability
and sickness benefits pursuant to the POEA-SEC and the existing CBA in the company,
but to no avail. Because of that, petitioner filed a case before the LA. In its decision, the
La ruled in favor of petitioner, which ordered herein respondent Hammonia and Atlantic
Marine to pay the petitioner with US$60,000 as disability benefits, US$2,568 as sickness
allowance and 10% for attorney’s fees.

Aggrieved, respondents elevated the case to the NLRC which ruled in their favor. In its
decision, the NLRC had reversed the LA’s assailed decision on the ground that petitioner
was already declared fit for duty. Because of that, herein petitioner appealed before the
CA. However, in its decision, the CA ruled in favor of the respondents.

Hence, this appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not the company-designated physician’s pronouncement should be followed.

Ruling:

Yes. The POEA Standard Employment Contract and the CBA clearly provide that when a
seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board the vessel, his fitness or
unfitness for work shall be determined by the company designated physician. If the
physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician’s
assessment, the opinion of a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and
the seafarer to be the decision final and binding on them.

Thus, while petitioner had the right to seek a second and even a third opinion, the final
determination of whose decision must prevail must be done in accordance with an agreed
procedure. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not avail of this procedure; hence, we have
no option but to declare that the company-designated doctor’s certification is the final
determination that must prevail. We do so mindful that the company had exerted real
effort to provide the petitioner with medical assistance, such that the petitioner finally
ended with a 20/20 vision.

The company-designated physician, too, monitored the petitioner’s case from the
beginning and we cannot simply throw out his certification, as the petitioner suggested,
because he has no expertise in ophthalmology. Under the facts of this case, it was the
company-designated doctor who referred the petitioner’s case to the proper medical
specialist whose medical results are not essentially disputed; who monitored the
petitioner’s case during its progress; and who issued his certification on the basis of the
medical records available and the results obtained.
In light of the above conclusions, we see no need to discuss the petitioner’s other
submissions that the lack of disability has rendered moot, particularly the existence of
doubt that the petitioner insists should be resolved in his favor.

You might also like