E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
3 of 14
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57204
on his nerve roots. If these are not (sic) remove, his condition would
worsen to the exten[t] that he cannot use his upper extremities. x x x
[17]
Dr. Escutin later concluded that petitioner suffered from “Central disc herniation,
C3/C4, C4/C5; Cervical spondylosis; Central disc herniation L4/L5; Spondylolistheisi,
L5/S1 and nerve Radiculopathy, C3/C4, C4/C5, L4/L5, L5S1.” He then reported the
following
DISABILITY RATING:
xxx
He is given a (sic) PERMANENT DISABILITY. HE IS UNFIT TO BE A
SEAMAN (sic) ON WHATEVER CAPACITY.[18]
Acting on petitioner’s request for compensation, respondents offered a settlement
based on the disability grading given by the company-designated physician.
Petitioner refused and insisted that he be paid the benefits corresponding to that
given to those suffering from permanent total disability.
On February 11, 2009, petitioner filed his complaint before the LA claiming
permanent total disability benefits.
Respondents sought the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit, or, in the
alternative, the limitation of the award of disability benefits to Grade 11 and/or 12 as
suggested by its company-designated physician. According to respondents, rather
than upholding the findings of Dr. Escutin that petitioner suffered from “permanent
disability,” the disability gradings suggested by the company-designated physicians
should prevail considering that they thoroughly examined and treated petitioner
from August 2008 to January 2009.
Decision of the Labor Arbiter
As earlier stated, on November 27, 2009, the LA rendered its Decision[19] awarding
petitioner permanent total disability benefits amounting to $60,000.00 as well as
attorney’s fees. For the LA, there was no conflict in the assessment of the company
physicians and that of Dr. Escutin, only that the latter further declared that he could
no longer return to his former job as a seaman because he suffered from
“permanent disability.”[20] Thus, the LA opined that the conclusion of Dr. Escutin that
petitioner was permanently disabled should be upheld because the findings of the
company-designated physicians, which were often biased, did not declare him as “fit
to work.”[21] In disposing the complaint, the LA also awarded attorney’s fees, but
dismissed the claims for sick wages and damages for lack of legal basis.[22]
3/27/2020, 12:39 PM