6/5/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Petitioners referred respondent to its designated physician who recommended that his
knee should be operated on.[9] Respondent underwent surgery known as Open
Reduction and Fixation with Intramedullary Nails.[10] After a series of evaluations, on
September 21, 2000, Dr. Elenita Torres Supan, the attending physician, issued a final
evaluation certificate wherein she categorically cleared respondent from his injury and
allowed him to resume his work even with implants, which can be removed after a year
and a half.[11]
On May 2, 2001, respondent, through counsel, wrote petitioners, claiming for full
disability benefits amounting to US$60,000.00. He claimed that the injury suffered
while working for petitioners "will not permit him to work again" as a Seaman which
rendered him totally and permanently disabled.[12]
After his demand went unheeded, respondent filed on July 6, 2001 a Complaint for
Disability Benefits and for Moral and Exemplary Damages plus attorney's fees alleging
that:
1. he continues to suffer from the injury which caused his repatriation;
2. an independent physician had suggested a disability grade of 13 for his
injury;
3. he is suffering from permanent medical unfitness which entitles him to
at least US$3,360 up to a maximum of US$60,000; [and]
4. private respondents failed and unjustifiably refused to pay his disability
benefits.[13]
Having failed to reach amicable settlement during the mandatory conference, the
parties were directed to submit their respective position papers.
Respondent averred that under the provision of the Labor Code and Supreme Court
doctrines, he is entitled to full disability benefits because his injury occurred during his
10-month contract and he is no longer fit for sea services as certified by an
independent doctor, and has, as a result lost his earning capacity. He argued that the
POEA Contract does not exclude or prohibit an independent physician from giving a
disability grading and that the Labor Code concept of disability (loss or diminution of
earning power) is not excluded in the interpretation of the provisions of the POEA
Contract.[14]
Furthermore, respondent alleged that although he was pronounced fit to work, he can
never be considered fit for employment if he still has implants on his leg since he can
no longer carry heavy objects while on board a vessel. He claimed that the declaration
of fit to work by the company designated physician was made out of bias.[15]
On the other hand, petitioners averred: that respondent is not entitled to any disability
benefit as he was declared fit to work by the company designated physician; that his fit
to work declaration negates his claims for disability benefits; that under the provisions
of POEA Standard Employment Contract, respondent's disability can only be assessed
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61059
2/13