6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Gepanaga’s claim and reversed the decision of the LA. It opined that the assessment of the company-designated physician should not be binding in determining the true condition of Gepanaga, considering that he was chosen, engaged and remunerated by Veritas and, as such, was likely to advance and serve its interests. Dr. Villa, on the other hand, was a government physician, and the NLRC gave credence to his medical assessment of Gepanaga’s condition. The NLRC also noted that the allegation that Gepanaga was covered by the CBA was never refuted, and, thus, awarded him $89,100.00 in accordance with its provisions. Both parties sought reconsideration. The NLRC denied the motion of Veritas but granted Gepanaga’s claim for attorney’s fees. Ruling of the Court of Appeals In finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC, the CA held that Gepanaga indeed suffered from permanent disability as he was unable to perform his customary work as seaman for more than 120 days. According to the CA, although the Certification from Dr. Cruz was issued 91 days after his repatriation on December 3, 2008, there was no categorical evidence to show that he was able to resume his job after the crushing injury which resulted in the fracture of the distal phalanx left middle finger. The CA agreed with the NLRC that the terms of the CBA should govern in determining the liabilities of the parties. Citing Article 27 of the CBA, the CA opined that the CBA did not prohibit a second medical opinion, and it even allowed the nomination of a third physician in case of disagreement between the assessment of the company-designated physician and the personal physician of the seafarer. Finding that Veritas failed to avail of a third doctor, the CA ruled that the NLRC did not err in construing that it is not only the findings of the company-designated physician that should control in determining the fitness and/or degree of disability of Gepanaga. As the NLRC did, the CA concluded that Gepanaga suffered from permanent total disability as a result of his injuries. It was undisputed that because of the injury he sustained, Gepanaga lost the gripping power of his left hand and he was unable to return to his usual work as a seaman for a period of more than 120 days. The CA noted that despite the treatment and assessment of the company-designated physician, the injury sustained did not show any appreciable improvement as diagnosed by an independent physician; and that the independent assessment of Dr. Villa showed that the treatment he received failed to restore the ability of the injured finger to its normal function. With such handicap, the CA found that it would not be possible for Gepanaga to perform his work as a seaman. The CA, however, pointed out that the NLRC failed to disclose the basis for the personal liability of Marquez. In its evaluation, the CA found that there was no categorical evidence to show that Marquez acted maliciously or in bad faith and, therefore, should not be made personally liable for the payment of the disability benefits. Veritas and Marquez sought reconsideration but to no avail. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59123 3/11