6/5/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
compensation, USD eighty thousand (80,000) for ratings, (Groups B, C, &
D) x x x. For the purposes of this Article, loss of profession means when the
physical condition of the Seafarer prevents a return to sea service, under
applicable national and international standards or when it is otherwise clear
that the Seafarer’s condition will adversely prevent the Seafarer’s future of
comparable employment on board ships.[18]
The LA found Dr. Garduce’s opinion as credible. The LA likewise declared that even if
the Disability Grade of Eight assessed by Dr. Alegre would be considered instead, it
cannot alter the fact that the petitioner’s medical condition was permanent thereby
resulting in the loss of his profession as a seaman. Further, the petitioner was unable to
perform his customary job for more than 120 days, hence, under the law, he should be
considered as permanently and totally disabled.[19]
Ruling of the NLRC
The respondents assailed the LA decision before the NLRC. The dispositive portion of
the NLRC Decision[20] dated November 28, 2008 reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision under review is hereby,
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another entered, DISMISSING the cause of
action for payment of higher disability benefits.
According[ly], [the petitioner] is declared entitled to an award of disability
compensation equivalent to GRADE EIGHT (8) under the [POEA-SEC].
SO ORDERED.[21]
The NLRC explained that:
Records show that [Dr. Alegre] personally examined the [petitioner] starting
August 18, 2006. From said date until January 26, 2007, [the petitioner]
underwent medical examination for no less than eight (8) times x x x.
Notably, on two occasions, Dr. Alegre suggested that [the petitioner]
undergo operation. [The petitioner] himself refused but instead opted for
epidural steroid injection and physical therapy x x x. Having failed to receive
a higher disability rating, [the petitioner] waited [for] over four (4) months
before he sought a second opinion which was based on a mere single
consultation that, in turn, produced a mere handwritten diagnosis. From
these established facts, even granting that the disability assessment should
have been as what [the petitioner’s] private physician had determined, his
conduct is considered as a supervening cause that could account for such
disability, noting further that the second medical opinion was obtained
several months after the company-designated physician had issued a
disability rating. These circumstances warrant according to the medical
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58964
3/18