4/13/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly obligations under the POEA-SEC. Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr. [41] succinctly spells out the duties of the companydesignated physician when a seafarer is medically repatriated, viz.: 1. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him; 2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total; 3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g. seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the companydesignated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and 4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.[42] While, in this case, the company-designated physician failed to issue a complete and definite medical assessment within the 120-day period, the need to continue Antolino's physical therapy sessions justified the extension of the same to 240 days.[43] This extended period should have given the company-designated physician ample time to completely assess Antolino's injury and recommend the appropriate disability rating, if any. Accordingly, Antolino was advised[44] to report to the clinic of Transglobal Health System, Inc. in Manila on November 4, 2015, or 141 days after he suffered the injury complained of. He was adequately warned that failure to do so would result in the forfeiture of his disability benefits. However, as discussed above, he did not attend the scheduled check-up, and, precisely for this reason, the company-designated physician was unable to issue a complete and definite medical assessment. Certainly, the Court has not lost sight of the legal truism that the POEA-SEC, being a labor contract, is imbued with public interest.[45] "Accordingly, its provisions must be construed fairly, reasonably[,] and liberally in favor of the seafarer in the pursuit of his [or her] employment on board ocean-going vessels."[46] Nevertheless, this does not mean that every dispute regarding the POEA-SEC shall be decided in favor of the seafarer.[47] Social justice, which serves as the foundation for the Court's preference towards labor, "authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer."[48] Management, too, must be sustained when it is in the right. And when it is the employee who is at fault, the Court shall not hesitate to rule against labor and in favor of capital. After all, "[j]ustice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law and doctrine."[49] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66178 9/12