6/5/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
to this case, the mechanism prescribed to determine liability for a disability
benefits claim. x x x Durnadag, however, pursued his claim without
observing the laid-out procedure. He consulted physicians of his choice
regarding his disability after Dr. Dacanay, the company-designated
physician, issued her fit-to-work certification for him. There is nothing
inherently wrong with the consultations as the POEA-SEC and the CBA allow
him to seek a second opinion. The problem arose only when he pre-empted
the mandated procedure by filing a complaint for permanent disability
compensation on the strength of his chosen physicians' opinions, without
referring the conflicting opinions to a third doctor for final determination.
The filing of the complaint constituted a breach of Dumadag's
contractual obligation to have the conflicting assessments of his
disability referred to a third doctor for a binding opinion. x x x Thus,
the complaint should have been dismissed, for without a binding
third opinion, the fit-to-work certification of the companydesignated physician stands, pursuant to the POEA-SEC and the CBA.
[45] (Emphasis supplied.)
Besides, the findings of Dr. Lim and Dr. Chuasuan should prevail over that of Dr. Jacinto
considering that the former examined, diagnosed, and treated respondent from his
repatriation on May 9, 2010 until he was assessed fit to work on September 15, 2010;
whereas, it appears that the independent physician, Dr. Jacinto, only examined
respondent on October 13, 2010[46] which was the same day the latter filed his claim
for permanent total disability benefits.[47] While the medical certificate indicates that
respondent was under Dr. Jacinto's service beginning "September 2010," no supporting
document on record shows this to be true. In fact, the NLRC even observed that the
medical certificate of Dr. Jacinto was issued after a onetime examination and worse,
without any medical support.[48] Case law dictates that, under these circumstances,
the assessment of the company-designated physician should be given more credence
for having been arrived at after months of medical attendance and diagnosis, compared
with the assessment of a private physician done in one day on the basis of an
examination or existing medical records.[49]
Finally, as the NLRC aptly pointed out, respondent even signed the certification of
fitness to work, which thus operates as an admission in petitioners' favor.[50] The
burden of proof to show that his consent was vitiated in signing said certification befalls
upon respondent; a burden the latter, however, failed to discharge.
In fine, absent a showing that respondent is entitled to the full disability compensation
under the CBA as afore-discussed, the Court finds that the NLRC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in dismissing respondent's complaint. The CA ruling should
therefore be reversed.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 25, 2013 and the
Resolution dated April 7, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 126368 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint of Romeo V. Panogalinog, docketed
as NLRC RAB No. NCR Case No. (M) NCR-10-14690-10, is DISMISSED for lack of
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61201
9/13