This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-04-20 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As a final note, it must be mentioned that the Court respects and upholds the principle of liberality in construing the POEA-SEC in favor of the seafarer. Nonetheless, it cannot grant claims for compensation based on mere conjectures. Indeed, liberal construction neither warrants the blithe disregard of the evidence on record nor the misapplication of our laws.[46] | |||||
|
2014-11-19 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| "The entitlement of a seafarer on overseas employment to disability benefits is governed by the medical findings, by law and by the parties' contract."[18] Section 20-B[19] of the POEA-SEC laid out the procedure to be followed in assessing the seafarer's disability in addition to specifying the employer's liabilities on account of such injury or illness. The same provision also provides that the seafarer is not irrevocably bound by the findings of the company-designated physician as he is allowed to seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of his choice. In case of disagreement between the findings of the company-designated physician and the seafarer's private physician, the parties shall jointly agree to refer the matter to a third doctor whose findings shall be final and binding on both.[20] | |||||
|
2014-11-12 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Philman Marine v. Cabanban,[71] this court gave more credence to the company-designated physician's assessment since "records show that the medical certifications issued by Armando's chosen physician were not supported by such laboratory tests and/or procedures that would sufficiently controvert the "normal" results of those administered to Armando at the St. Luke's Medical Center. . . [while] the medical certificate of the petitioners' designated physician was issued after three months of closely monitoring Armando's medical condition and progress, and after careful analysis of the results of the diagnostic tests and procedures administered to Armando while in consultation with Dr. Crisostomo, a cardiologist."[72] Philman discussed as follows: In several cases, we held that the doctor who have had a personal knowledge of the actual medical condition, having closely, meticulously and regularly monitored and actually treated the seafarer's illness, is more qualified to assess the seafarer's disability. In Coastal Safeway Marine Services, Inc. v. Esguerra, the Court significantly brushed aside the probative weight of the medical certifications of the private physicians, which were based merely on vague diagnosis and general impressions. Similarly in Ruben D. Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency, Inc., et al., the Court accorded greater weight to the assessments of the company-designated physician and the consulting medical specialist which resulted from an extensive examination, monitoring and treatment of the seafarer's condition, in contrast with the recommendation of the private physician which was "based only on a single medical report . . . [outlining] the alleged findings and medical history . . . obtained after . . . [one examination]."[73] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2014-09-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Cootauco v. MMS Phil. Maritime Services, Inc.,[30] we categorically declared that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his rights to the benefits by substantial evidence.[31] We reiterated this ruling in Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. Tanawan,[32] Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency, Inc.,[33] Crew and Ship Management International Inc. v. Soria,[34] Philman Marine Agency, Inc. v. Cabanban,[35] and Manota v. Avantgarde Shipping Corporation,[36] to name a few. In the case of a seafarer claiming entitlement to disability benefits under the provisions of the POEA-SEC, this burden of proof obviously lies with the seafarer. | |||||
|
2014-09-03 |
CARPIO, ACTING C.J. |
||||
| We agree with the Court of Appeals' ruling, giving more credence to the medical findings of the company-designated doctor. Contrary to the ruling of the NLRC, petitioner's doctor did not categorically give petitioner a grade 1 disability rating which is equivalent to total and permanent disability.[18] Petitioner's physician found petitioner to be suffering from "PARTIAL PERMANENT DISABILITY," and "is UNFIT FOR SEADUTY in whatever capacity as seaman." Aside from this seemingly inconsistent assessment by petitioner's doctor, there was no evidence submitted of medical procedures, examinations or tests which would support his conclusion that petitioner is unfit for sea duty in whatever capacity as a seaman. In contrast, the company-designated doctor gave petitioner a final disability grading under the POEA schedule of disabilities of "grade 11- complete immobility of an ankle joint in normal position," only after petitioner had undergone a series of medical tests and examinations, and physical therapy over a period of six months, during which the company-designated doctor issued periodic medical reports.[19] As the Court aptly stated in Philman Marine Agency, Inc. (now DOHLE-PHILMAN Manning Agency, Inc.) v. Cabanban,[20] "the doctor who have had a personal knowledge of the actual medical condition, having closely, meticulously and regularly monitored and actually treated the seafarer's illness, is more qualified to assess the seafarer's disability."[21] Based on the Disability Report[22] of petitioner's doctor, it appears that he only conducted a physical examination on petitioner before issuing his final diagnosis and disability rating on petitioner's condition. Clearly, the findings of the company-designated doctor, who, with his team of specialists which included an orthopedic surgeon and a physical therapist, periodically treated petitioner for months and monitored his condition, deserve greater evidentiary weight than the single medical report of petitioner's doctor, who appeared to have examined petitioner only once.[23] | |||||