Conflicting reports

In the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA SEC) which is deemed integrated in a seafarer’s contract, it is an indispensable condition to the filing of disability benefit that within three working days from his repatriation, the claimant submits himself to medical examination by a company designated physician. But is the assessment of said physician final, binding or conclusive upon the claimant or the labor tribunal or the courts? This is the issue answered in this case of Magno.

Magno was hired by a Japanese Shipping Company (NMMC) through its local agent (MTI) as Third Mate on board one of its ships for a period of ten months with a monthly salary of $650. Four months into his contract, Magno suffered acute myocardial infarction and was operated on then repatriated to the Philippines on February 24, 1999.

From February 25 to June 21, 1999, Magno was examined and treated by the company designated physician, Dr. Cirio. On June 21, 1999 Dr. Cirio issued his medical report certifying that Magno is already healed and fit to work effective that date.

Seven months later however, or on February 21, 2000 Magno filed with the NLR Labor Arbiter (LA) a complaint for disability benefits, illness allowances, reimbursement of medical expenses, damages and attorney’s fees, attaching thereto the medical report of another physician, Dr. Elmo who said that he still had coronary artery disease with risk of heart attack which impairs his quality of life since he cannot be as physically active as before.

However, during the conciliation conference before the LA, Magno agreed to be examined again by the company physician, Dr. Cirio who reiterated his earlier opinion that Magno is already fit to work and resume his previous activities.

In view of the conflicting opinions of Dr. Cirio and Dr. Elmo, the LA allowed Magno to get the third opinion from the physician of the Employees Compensation Commission (ECC). After examining Magno, the ECC doctor confirmed the findings of Dr. Elmo and reported that Magno was still suffering from coronary artery disease and his disability was permanent. This report was admitted by the LA.

But MTI and NMMMC questioned this action of the LA. They contended that under the POEA SEC, it is only the company designated physician who has the sole and exclusive right to determine and assess whether a seafarer is entitled to disability benefit or not, and that no other medical assessment of the claimant should be allowed, much less one rendered by a physician of the ECC as said agency had no jurisdiction over disability claims under POEA SEC. Were they correct?

No. The rule is that under Section 20-B (3) of the 1996 POEA SEC which is applicable to Magno’s case, it is mandatory for the claimant to be examined by a company physician within three days from his repatriation. The unexplained omission of this requirement will bar the filing of a claim for disability benefits. However in submitting himself to examination by the company designated physician, a claimant does not automatically bind himself to the medical report issued by said physician; neither are the labor tribunals or the courts bound by said medical report. Its inherent merit will be weighed and considered. Moreover, the claimant may dispute the medical findings of the company-designated physician by seasonably consulting another physician. The medical report issued by said physician will also be evaluated by the labor tribunal and the court based on its inherent merits.

So the LA is correct in allowing the medical reports of the ECC physician and Dr. Elmo which will be considered and weighed as against the reports of Dr. Cirio when it decides the main case (Maunlad Transport etc. et.al. vs. Manigo Jr., G.R. 161416, June 13, 2008).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]