WILHELMSEN-SMITH BELL MANNING/WILHELMSEN SHIP MANAGEMENT, LTD./ FAUSTO R. PREYSLER, JR., vs.
ALLAN
SUAREZ
FACTS:
Suarez was a seaman whose employment was covered by a Model CBA of the Associated Marine
Officers and Seamens Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP). Sometime in December 2010, while securing chain
lashing heavy equipment on board the vessel, Suarez suffered severe back pain which radiated to his right
abdomen. He was brought to a medical clinic in Germany, where he was diagnosed with Right Pelvoureteric
Junction Obstruction. His attending physician declared him unfit to work. Suarez was medically repatriated and
disembarked from the vessel on December 23, 2010. He immediately reported to the agency and was referred
to its accredited physician at the Metropolitan Medical Center (MMC), Dr. Karen Frances Hao-Quan. Dr. Hao-
Quan initially diagnosed him with "ureteropelvic junction obstruction" (UJO). Allegedly, despite his medications,
his condition persisted. He was again examined by Dr. Hao-Quan and was found to be suffering from
"hydroneprosis secondary to UJO, right." On February 16, 2011, he again consulted Dr. Hao-Quan who
diagnosed him with "hydroneprhrosis secondary to UJO, right; s/p nephrectomy, right and cystoscopy."
Meanwhile, Suarez consulted a doctor of his choice, Dr. Manuel C. Jacinto, Jr., who declared Suarez no longer
fit to work as a seafarer, prompting him to file the complaint. He prayed for permanent total disability
compensation of US$89,100.00 under the AMOSUP CBA. Suarez alleged that under the permanent medical
unfitness clause of the CBA, he is entitled to permanent disability benefits, regardless of his disability grade.
In her January 31, 2011 medical report, MMC Asst. Medical Coordinator, Dr. Mylene Cruz-Balbon, declared that
Suarezs UJO was not work-related. Finally or on May 10, 2011, the company urologist, Dr. Ed Gatchalian,
declared Suarez fit to work. The petitioners still shouldered the cost of his medical treatment until he was
declared fit to work by the company-designated physician.
ISSUE: W/N Suarez is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.
RULING: No!
1. It appears that Suarezs illness, hydronephrosis secondary to UJO, right (a kidney ailment) is not work-
related and therefore not compensable. Under Section 20 (B) 3 of the POEA-SEC, the employer is liable
only for compensation/benefits when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of
the contract. Even the disputed AMOSUP CBA (invoked by Suarez but rejected by the NLRC) states that
a seafarer who suffers permanent disability as a result of work related illness or from an injury as a result
of an accident, shall in addition to sick pay, be entitled to compensation according to the provisions of
the CBA. Also, UJO is not an occupational disease as it does not appear in the list of occupational
diseases under the POEA-SEC, although under its Section 20(4), it is disputably presumed to be work-
related. In this case, the company-designated physician certified that the subject illness is not work-
related, an assessment supported by medical studies indicating that UJO or uteropelvic junction
obstruction is a congenital abnormality.
2. Even on the assumption that Suarezs illness is work-related, his claim still cannot prosper. The company-
designated physician declared Suarez fit to work. Under the POEA-SEC, it is the company designated
physician who determines the fitness to work or the degree of permanent disability of a seafarer who
disembarks from the vessel for medical treatment. The AMOSUPCBA likewise provides that "the degree
of disability which the employer, subject to this Agreement, is liable to pay shall be determined by a
doctor appointed by the Employer." On the other hand, LA Panganiban noted that the medical
certificate issued by Dr. Jacinto to Suarez "shows that it was made without proof of any extensive
examination having been conducted" and it was "evident that it was the first and only consultation
made by the complainant" with Dr. Jacinto.
3. The NLRC and CAs reliance on the 120-day rule for the award of permanent total disability
compensation to Suarez is misplaced.
In this case, Suarez was declared fit to work by Dr. Gatchalian 138 days after his repatriation, which was well
within the extended 240-day period set by the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, for the physician to
make an assessment of the seafarers disability or to declare him fit to work. The fit-to-work certification issued
by Dr. Gatchalian clearly negated a permanent total disability assessment. The NLRC and CA rulings were
rendered with grave abuse of discretion as they were in total disregard of the POEA-SEC and applicable
Philippine law, particularly the following provisions: Section 20 (B) 3
Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to
his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the
company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.
xxxx
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 third doctors decision shall be final and binding on the parties.
The Court said in Vergara case that "if the 120 days initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made
because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability period may be
extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a
permanent partial or total disability already exists. The seaman may of course also be declared fit to work at
any time such declaration is justified by his medical condition."
While Suarez was free to consult a physician of his choice regarding his medical condition and/or disability as
implied by the POEA-SEC, the contrary opinion of his chosen physician should have been referred to a third
doctor, jointly with the petitioners, for a binding and final opinion. He should have initiated the referral
considering that the petitioners were not aware that he consulted Dr. Jacinto. Instead, he filed the complaint
upon issuance of the unfit-to-work certification of Dr. Jacinto.
The filing of the complaint was premature and constituted a breach of Suarez's contractual obligation with the
petitioners. And because there was no third and binding opinion, Dr. Gatchalian's fit-to-work assessment should
prevail. The complaint should have been dismissed.
