Magsaysay Mitsui Osk Marine INC., Koyo Marine Co. LTD.

v Oliver Buenaventura
2018, Martires J.

Petitioner: Magsaysay Mitsui Osk Marine INC., Koyo Marine Co. LTD
Respondent: Oliver Buenaventura

DOCTRINE: Conditions for entitlement to disability compensation:

- (Unrelated to conditions but important) Employees/seafarers are NOT precluded from
challenging the diagnosis even though he/she is issued a certification which determines
whether he/she is entitled to disability benefits.
- If there is conflicting opinions regarding permanent and total disability between the
company-doctors and a seafarer’s own doctors, it is Mandatory for the
seafarer/employee to seek a 3rd party doctor as agreed upon by both parties (part and
parcel of the employment contract between seafarers and their employers)
- No compensation if there is failure to refer to a third party doctor
- Generally, 120 days is given to give assessment to determine disability
- There must be a justifiable reason to extend treatment to 240 days and the employer
has the burden of proving the reason to extend. If there is still no assessment even
after 240 days, the disability becomes permanent , regardless of any justification given
Facts:
● Oliver Buenaventura (Oliver) was hired as a seaman on board the vessel Meridian.
● On Jan 25, 2007, Oliver met an accident wherein a mooring winch crushed his right
hand. He suffered a fracture which required emergency surgical procedures which was
done in Japan
● On Feb 21, 2007, he was medically repatriated and was referred to a company-
designated clinic and was attended by Dr Hebron who then referred him to Dr.
Fernandez, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Hebron declared Oliver fit for work. Despite this,
Oliver still felt pain in his right hand
● Dr. Hebron stated that this might be due to the MC plates in his hand and its removal
would cost P70,000 which would not be shouldered by Magsaysay.
● On his own, Oliver then sought another medical consultant, Dr. Rosales who found him
unfit for work. He also consulted Dr. Garduce, also an orthopedic surgeon, who opined
that it would be difficult for Oliver to continue working as a seaman.
● Oliver then filed a complaint for disability compensation. The LA dismissed his
complaint ruling that he was not suffering from total and permanent disability, and that
the company-designated physicians’ (Hebron and Fernandez) declaration of fitness was
the only basis in awarding disability benefits. The LA did not consider Oliver’s own
physicians (Garduce and Rosales) since they examined him only for a short period of
time.
● The NLRC affirmed the LA ruling that the company-designated physician was in the best
position to determine Oliver’s fitness to work, and that Oliver’s own doctors held little
weight. .
● The CA reversed the NLRC stating that the seafarer is not precluded from getting a
second opinion regarding his condition for claiming disability benefits. He is entitled to
 total and permanent disability benefits because he was declared fit to work only after 6
months from the time he was medically repatriated.

Issue/Ruling:
Issue #1 W/N Oliver is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits - NO
● Although a company-designated physician issues a certification of a seafarer’s medical
status, and on the basis of the certification, a seafarer is informed of whether he is
entitled to disability benefits or not, they are NOT precluded from challenging the
diagnosis.
● Under Sec 20 (A) of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard
Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), should a seafarer’s own doctor disagrees with the
assessment of the company-designated physician, a third (3rd) doctor may be agreed
upon by the employer and seafarer, and the latter’s decision shall be binding.
● It is not required under the POEA-SEC for there to be bad faith or malice on the part fo
the company-designated physician in order for a seafarer to seek a second opinion.
● Due to the conflicting findings, Oliver was bound to seek a third-party doctor Oliver
DID NOT so, and this is mandatory. He filed a complaint without informing
Magsaysay of the conflicting medical opinions.
● Due to Oliver’s failure to seek a 3rd-party doctor grants the opinion of the company-
designated physician more weight and probative value over Oliver’s own Doctor’s
opinion. This could be set aside only with a showing of a bias against Oliver however
there is insufficient evidence to show this.
● Furthermore, according to the CA, Oliver should be entitled to disability benefits because
the fit-to-work certification was issued only after six (6) months from repatriation, or after
the lapse of the 120-day period.
● JURISPRUDENCE: 2 set of cases
- 1st set: NO award for permanent and total disability to seafarers whose
treatment lasted more than 120 days but not exceeding 240 days because it
was opined by the company doctor opined that further treatment is needed and
that there was justification for extending the period
- 2nd set: Award granted because the company doctor did not give justification
for extending the period. Disability was permanent and treatment would not
address the disability.
- If, even after 240 days, there is still no assessment, the finding of permanent
and total disability becomes conclusive
● Under this interpretation, both the 120-day period under Article 192 (2) of the Labor
Code and the extended 240-day period under Rule X, Section 2 of its IRR are given full
force and effect.
● In short, there must be a justifiable reason to extend treatment to 240 days and the
employer has the burden of proving the reason to extend. If there is still no
assessment even after 240 days, the disability becomes permanent , regardless of any
justification given.
● Mere lapse of the 120-day period DOES NOT automatically render the disability
permanent. In Oliver’s case, the period was extended since he underwent therapy and
 rehabilitation and was continuously observed. He was declared fit to work six (6)
months from being repatriated which is within the 240-day period.
Dispositive:
the 18 March 2010 Decision and the 28 February 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CAG. R. SP No. 109150 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint for total and
permanent disability benefits is DISMISSED.