Tirol

Topic: Overseas Contractual Workers (OCW)

169. Caranto vs. Bergesen D.Y. Phils., Inc.
PRUDENCIO CARANTO v. BERGESEN D.Y. PHILS. AND/OR BERGESEN D.Y. A.S.A.
Doctrine: Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements that it is the company designated
physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman's disability, whether total or
partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of the latter's employment. The SC found
no error committed by the CA in giving more weight to Dr. Alegre's finding than that of Dr.
Vicaldo's. Dr. Alegre's finding was based on the results of the laboratory examinations
conducted on petitioner. On the other hand, Dr. Vicaldo examined petitioner only once, and his
justification for the latter's disability grading was not supported by any diagnostic or medical
procedure but merely based on general impressions.
Action Sequence: LA (in favor of Caranto)  NLRC (affirmed)  CA (reversed)
Parties:
- Employer: Bergesen D.Y. Phils., Inc., local manning agent
- Employee: Chief Steward/Cook
Facts: In October 1999, petitioner was hired by respondent Bergesen D. Y. Phils., Inc., the local
manning agent of respondent Bergesen D. Y. ASA, as Chief Steward/Cook aboard its vessel
"M/V Berge Hus", for a period of 9 months. Petitioner had previously entered into 3 separate
contracts of employment with respondents. Petitioner is a member of the Associated Marine
Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP) which has a CBA with respondent
foreign principal, represented by respondent local manning agent. Petitioner underwent a pre-
employment medical examination (PEME) before he was deployed for overseas employment.
His PEME indicated that he was fit for sea service but with a notation "Class B diabetes
controlled with medications". Petitioner embarked on respondents' vessel and left the
Philippines in December 1999.
While on board the vessel, petitioner felt a severe headache accompanied by fever and
dizziness. Despite the medication given him by the Chief Mate, his condition did not improve.
He was examined by a medical doctor from Jivan Deep Hospital and Polyclinic in Jamnagar,
India, who diagnosed him to be suffering; from diabetes mellitus and hypertension. He was then
signed off from the vessel and repatriated to the Philippine for further medical treatment.
In January 2000, petitioner was referred to Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz, the company-designated
physician, from Medical Center Manila. Dr. Cruz had seen petitioner seven times wherein he
instructed the latter to undergo laboratory examinations. He had issued reports on different
dates indicating the laboratory results and the prescribed medications as well as petitioner's
physical condition. During petitioner's visit in April 2000, Dr. Cruz found that petitioner was not
suffering from body weakness, the repeat FBS was normal and his blood pressure was 130/70
which was normal Petitioner was then diagnosed with controlled hypertension and diabetus
mellitus, and was declared fit to work on April 7, 2000.
While Dr. Cruz declared petitioner fit to work on April 7, 2000, respondents still granted the
request of petitioner's counsel for another medical opinion. Respondents required petitioner to
see Dr. Natalia G. Alegre of St. Luke's Hospital for a second medical opinion. Petitioner went to
see Dr. Alegre only on August 31, 2000 wherein he was directed to undergo laboratory
examinations. In September 2000, Dr. Alegre issued a Medical Report:
Diagnosis: Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease, Poorly Controlled Non-Insulin
Dependent Diabetes Mellitus, Poorly Controlled.
Mr. Caranto at this time is not fit for work as opined by our Cardiologist based on the
above diagnoses and may be given a disability of Gr. 12.
Respondents offered petitioner the amount of US$5,225.00 as disability compensation in
accordance with his disability grading but petitioner rejected the offer.
It appears that in May 2000, petitioner had consulted a private physician, Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo,
who diagnosed him to have Essential Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, non-insulin dependent
and found his condition to be a partial permanent disability.
Petitioner filed with the LA a complaint against respondents seeking disability benefits, sickness
allowance or reimbursement of medical expenses, damages and attorney's fees.
LA/RAB: In favor of Caranto. Ordered respondents to pay permanent medical unfitness benefits
under the pertinent provisions of the CBA. LA found that from the time petitioner had been
signed off from the vessel for medical treatment up to when Dr. Cruz declared the latter fit to
work, more than 120 days had elapsed which entitled petitioner to either a permanent partial or
total disability compensation, pursuant to Section 20B (5) of the POEA contract.
The LA upheld the medical assessment made by Dr. Vicaldo over that of Dr. Alegre's saying
that the latter's certification was self-serving being a company-designated physician whose
opinion was biased in favor of the company, hence, petitioner is entitled to a permanent partial
disability benefits.
NLRC Commissioner: Affirmed LA ruling in toto.
CA: Reversed the ruling. The CA found, among others, that there was no substantial evidence
to support the NLRC's finding that Dr. Vicaldo's medical finding and disability assessment were
reliable and satisfactory compared to that of Dr. Alegre's.
Issue: Whether petitioner is entitled to permanent disability benefits.
Ruling: NO.
In this case, petitioner was repatriated on December 25, 1999 and was seen and examined by
Dr. Cruz, the company-designated physician, 7 times and each time was prescribed
corresponding medications. Dr. Cruz made a diagnosis of controlled hypertension and diabetes
and declared him fit to work on April 7, 2000.
As petitioner was not satisfied with the assessment made by Dr. Cruz, he, through counsel,
requested respondents for another medical assessment to which respondents acceded by
directing petitioner to go to Dr. Alegre at St Luke's Hospital for a second medical opinion.
Petitioner went to Dr. Alegre's clinic for consultation only on August 31, 2000. After petitioner
was subjected to laboratory examinations, Dr. Alegre issued a medical report declaring the
former not fit to work and gave him a disability of Grade 12.
However, petitioner sought the opinion of a private physician, Dr. Vicaldo, who declared him
unfit to board ship and work as seaman and found his condition to be a partial permanent
disability.
The LA and the NLRC Commissioner gave credence to Dr. Vialdo's disability grading but the CA
reversed and accepted that of Dr. Alegre's. The SC found no error committed by the CA in
giving more weight to Dr. Alegre's finding than that of Dr. Vicaldo's. Dr. Alegre's finding was
based on the results of the laboratory examinations conducted on petitioner. On the other hand,
Dr. Vicaldo examined petitioner only once, and his justification for the latter's disability grading
was not supported by any diagnostic or medical procedure but merely based on general
impressions. Hence, the SC adopted the CA's ruling in giving more evidentiary weight to Dr.
Alegre's assessment.
Petitioner contends that the two company-designated physicians vary in their assessment of his
medical condition, hence, he cannot be faulted for not relying on any of their findings but relied
instead on Dr. Vicaldo's disability rating.
The SC was not persuaded. After petitioner' repatriation on December 25, 1999, he was seen
by Dr. Cruz seven times and was prescribed corresponding medications. He was declared fit to
work on April 7, 2000 after his hypertension and diabetes mellitus were diagnosed to be
controlled. However, when petitioner went to consult with Dr. Alegre on August 31, 2000, he
was found not fit to work at that time because of his poorly-controlled diabetes mellitus and
hypertension and gave him a disability rating of grade 12.
The drastic change in petitioner's health condition, as indicated in Dr. Alegre's Report, was
brought about by the non-compliance in the intake of medications. The interval of almost four
months from April 7, 2000 and without the intake of proper medications explain the difference in
the assessment of the two company designated doctors.
Petitioner alleges that as he was unable to work for more than 120 days as a result of his
illness, his condition constitutes permanent total disability relying on the case of Crystal
Shipping Inc. v. Natividad.
The factual circumstances of the Crystal Shipping case are different. There, the seafarer was
diagnosed with cancer and was assessed by the company-designated physician as suffering
from Grade 9 disability, while his private doctor issued a Grade 1 disability. It was found that the
seafarer was unable to work from August 18, 1998 to February 22, 1999, at the least, or more
than 120 days, due to his medical treatment, which showed that his disability was permanent. In
this case, petitioner was repatriated on December 25, 1999 and had been declared fit to work
on April 7, 2000, which was within the. 120-day period treatment or the temporary total disability
period from the date of the seafarer's sign-off.
Dispositive: Petition DENIED.