6/5/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
by the companydesignated physician and such declaration binds the complainant; and,
that the company-designated physician is the most qualified to determine the precise
condition of respondent's health for having monitored and treated the complainant.[16]
In a Decision[17] dated January 28, 2003, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the
petitioners, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, let the instant complaint be, as it is
hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[18]
In ruling that respondent is not entitled to disability benefits, the LA cited the case of
German Marine Agencies, Inc. vs. NLRC[19] where the Court
company-designated physician who must proclaim that the
permanent disability whether total or partial due to either injury
term of the latter's employment, thus, the complainant's claim for
held that it is the
seaman suffered a
or illness during the
permanent partial or
permanent total disability must necessary fail.[20] The declaration of fitness issued by
the physicians who attended to and periodically evaluated the respondent's condition
soon after his repatriation from the vessel may not be outweighed by the certification
of purported disability issued 10 months after the complainant was certified fit to
resume employment.[21]
Respondent appealed before the NLRC, which affirmed the ruling of the LA and
rendered its decision in favor of the petitioners, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby ordered DISMISSED
for lack of merit and the assailed decision is hereby ordered AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[22]
In its decision, the NLRC noted that all the evaluation certificates issued by the
company-designated physicians were all in order and not biased as to favor petitioners
in their findings. The medical evaluation was periodically made and consistent with the
diagnosis made on the complainant as with continuous improvement on his operated
leg.[23]
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration on October 31, 2003. However, the NLRC
dismissed the motion for not finding any compelling reason to disturb the findings and
conclusion thereon.[24]
Aggrieved, the respondent elevated the matters.to the CA via petition for certiorari. The
CA reversed and set aside the twin Resolutions of the NLRC. The dispositive portion of
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61059
3/13