Magsaysay Marine Inc.

v, Michael Atraje, July 23, 2018

FACTS: On February 11, 2014 Atraje entered into a Contract of Employment with Mol Ship
through the local manning agent, Magsaysay Mol, to work on board a vessel Carnation Ace as a
Second Cook. It was his 7th contract with the company. Atraje boarded the vessel Feb. 28,
2014.

On March 4, 2014 at around noon time Araje slipped and fell while holding a casserole
containing water and vegetables. His head hit the stainless disposer and the floor. He had a
seizure and lost consciousness for 5 minutes. The incident was witnessed by the messman.
When the vessel reached Singapore he was brought to the Hospital and was diagnosed to have
suffered Epileptic Seizure with post-fit neurological deficit. He was unfit to work and
recommended to be repatriated.

Atraje arrived in the Philippines and was referred to Shiphealth, Inc. for further medical
evaluation. Shiphealth issued a medical report stating that the Neurologists service’s
reassessment was a single seizure episode. There was no indication for Atraje to undergo
further diagnostic or treatment intervention neurology-wise. He then completed 12 sessions of
physical therapy. However still feeling weakness, reoccurrences of lower back pain shoulder and
neck pain and difficulty in using his upper extremities. He consulted an independent specialist,
Dr. Magtira who issued a medical report that he is permanently unfit in any capacity to resume
his sea duties as a s seaman. On June 25, 2014 or 105 days from disembarkation ShipHealth
issued an Interim Disability Grading of Grade 10, stating Head, moderate paralysis of two
extremities producing moderate difficulty in movements with self-care activities.

Atraje was referred to Ygeia Medical Center for a second opinion stating that his
illnesses are not work related. Atraje filed a complaint against Magsaysay and Mol Ship for
payment of total permanent disability benefits, damages and attorney’s fees. Submitting their
respective pleadings. On May 15, 2015 in its decision the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board awarded disability benefits of $95,949.00 plus 10% of his attorneys fees in favor of
Atraje. Finding that said injuries were work-related. Further noting that while Atraje initiated
submitting to examination by a third doctor, there was silence on the part of Magsaysay and
Mol Ship.

Petitioners paid Atraje but without prejudice of their Rule 65 to petition before the Court
of Appeals. The CA affirmed the decision of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and denied the
motion of reconsideration of the petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the award of permanent and
total disability in favor of respondent Michael Atraje.

RULING: The Court denies the petition.

In this case it has been established that there was history of trauma at work involving
respondent while on board the vessel the respondent indeed suffered a fall while on board the
ship which caused injury to his neck. Having suffered a fall and or loss of consciousness while in
the course of performing as Second Cook aboard has gained prominence as the starting point
of the medical condition.

Neither did the CA erred in affirming the award of permanent disability in favor of
Atraje. The respondent was also never issued any medical assessment or progress report by the
company physicians, from his initial check-up until his last consultation, spanning a total of 204
days. He only came to know after his complaint was filed.
 Under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration – Standard Employment
Contract (POEA-SEC) it is the primary responsibility of the company-designated doctor to
determine the disability grading or fitness to work of seafarers. In order to be conclusive the
assessment must be complete.

ART. 192(c) (I) of the Labor Code provides that temporary total disability lasting
continuously for more than 120 days, except as otherwise provided in the Implementing Rules
or Amended Rules in Employees Compensation of Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code shall be
deemed total and permanent. Rule X, Section 2(a) of the Amended Rules on Employee
Compensation in turn provides that:

Section 2(a) Period of Entitlement – (a) That income benefit shall be paid beginning first
day of such disability. If caused by an injury or sickness it shall not be paid longer than 120
consecutive days except where such injury or sickness still requires medical
attendance beyond 120 days but not exceed 240 days from onset disability in which case
benefit for temporary total disability shall be paid. However, the System may declare total or
permanent disability at any time after 120 days of continuous temporary total disability as may
be warranted by the degree of actual loss or impairment of physical or mental functions as
determined by the system.

Here the company physician clearly breached their duty to provide a definite assessment
of respondent’s medical condition. There was no indication that the respondent was furnished
such medical reports. Through all his check-ups and tests, respondents did not receive any
medical assessment of his fitness to resume work from the company designated physician.

Respondent’s disability to perform his customary sea duties, coupled with the company
physicians abdication of their duty to declare his fitness or unfitness to work within the
prescribed period, transforms his disability to permanent and total by operation law.

In this case the third doctor referral provision does not apply because there is no
definite disability assessment from the company designated physicians.

Under Sec. 20 (a) (3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC ,”If a doctor appointed by the seafarer
disagreed with the assessment a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and
the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both the parties.” Such
compliance of the seafarer to the procedure presupposes the company physicians assessment
as to his fitness or unfitness before the expiration of the 120 days or 240 days period. Absent of
such certificate the law steps in to characterize his disability as total and permanent.

The respondent was kept in the dark about his medical condition. It is unfair and on bad
faith for the petitioners to demand compliance with the third doctor rule when they did not
fulfill their obligations in the first place. Furthermore, when the respondent submitted the
examination of the third doctor the petitioners were silent on that part.

Wherefore the petition is denied. The Court of Appeals Resolution is affirmed.