In a significant ruling concerning the rights of Filipino seafarers, the Supreme Court has reinforced the mandatory procedure for resolving medical disputes between a company-designated physician and a seafarer’s personal doctor. The Court emphasized that when these medical assessments conflict, the seafarer must request a third, jointly-agreed upon doctor to provide a final and binding opinion. Failure to follow this process means the company’s doctor’s assessment prevails, impacting a seafarer’s claim for disability benefits.

Conflicting Opinions at Sea: Who Decides a Seafarer’s Fitness to Work?

This case, Dohle Philman Manning Agency, Inc. v. Julius Rey Quinal Doble, involves a seafarer, Julius Rey Quinal Doble, who sought disability benefits after sustaining injuries on board the vessel “MVTS JAKARTA.” Doble claimed that due to these injuries, he was permanently unfit to work. However, the company-designated physician declared him fit to work within the 240-day period prescribed by law. Doble then consulted his own physician, who issued a conflicting assessment, stating that he was permanently disabled. This divergence in medical opinions became the crux of the legal battle, highlighting the importance of adhering to the established procedures for resolving such disputes under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

The legal framework governing the employment of Filipino seafarers is primarily found in the POEA-SEC. This contract outlines the rights and obligations of both the seafarer and the employer, particularly concerning illness and injury sustained during the term of employment. Section 20(B) of the POEA-SEC details the process for medical repatriation, treatment, and disability assessment. It mandates that a seafarer undergo a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days of arrival. If the seafarer requires further medical attention, the employer is obligated to provide it until the seafarer is declared fit or the degree of disability is established.

A critical aspect of Section 20(B) is the provision addressing disagreements in medical assessments. The provision states:

If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees 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 parties.

This clause establishes a clear mechanism for resolving conflicting medical opinions. The Supreme Court has consistently held that referral to a third doctor is a mandatory procedure, as emphasized in Formerly INC Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Rosales:

This referral to a third doctor has been held by this Court to be a mandatory procedure as a consequence of the provision that it is the company-designated doctor whose assessment should prevail. In other words, the company can insist on its disability rating even against a contrary opinion by another doctor, unless the seafarer expresses his disagreement by asking for the referral to a third doctor who shall make his or her determination and whose decision is final and binding on the parties.

In the case of Doble, after the company-designated physician declared him fit to work, Doble consulted his personal physician, who provided a contrary opinion. However, Doble did not request referral to a third doctor, instead opting to file a case before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially ruled in favor of Doble. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC decision but modified the basis of the award. However, the Supreme Court ultimately reversed the CA’s decision, emphasizing Doble’s failure to comply with the mandatory third doctor referral.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion by disregarding settled jurisprudence on the mandatory procedure. By failing to insist on the third doctor referral, Doble effectively forfeited his right to challenge the assessment of the company-designated physician. The Court noted that the company-designated physician had declared Doble fit to work within the extended 240-day period, further solidifying the validity of the company’s assessment. This timeline is significant because the law provides a specific period for the company to assess the seafarer’s condition.

Moreover, the Court reiterated the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines for medical assessments. The Court in Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Rapiz, clarified that the company-designated physician is given an initial 120 days, extendable to 240 days, from repatriation to provide treatment and assess the seafarer’s disability. If the company-designated physician declares the seafarer fit to work within this period, that assessment is generally binding, unless the seafarer properly contests it through the third doctor referral process. This highlights the importance of the company following procedure to have a stronger argument against the seafarer.

The ruling underscores the significance of procedural compliance in seafarer disability claims. Seafarers who disagree with the company-designated physician’s assessment must actively invoke their right to a third medical opinion. The absence of such a request renders the company doctor’s assessment final and binding, potentially precluding the seafarer from receiving disability benefits. This decision serves as a clear reminder to seafarers and their legal representatives to strictly adhere to the POEA-SEC’s prescribed procedures to protect their rights and interests. Moreover, employers should ensure to follow the time periods required by the POEA-SEC.

The Supreme Court’s decision also clarifies the weight given to medical assessments by a company-designated physician versus those of a seafarer’s personal doctor. While a seafarer has the right to seek a second opinion, that opinion does not automatically override the company doctor’s findings. The POEA-SEC provides a mechanism for resolving these conflicting opinions, and failure to follow this mechanism has significant legal consequences.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a seafarer is entitled to disability benefits when there is a conflicting medical assessment between the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s personal doctor, and the seafarer did not request a third doctor’s opinion.
What is the third doctor rule?	The third doctor rule states that if the seafarer’s doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, a third, jointly-agreed upon doctor’s decision is final and binding.
Is the third doctor referral mandatory?	Yes, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the referral to a third doctor is a mandatory procedure under the POEA-SEC.
What happens if a seafarer does not request a third doctor?	If a seafarer does not request a third doctor, the assessment of the company-designated physician becomes final and binding, which can affect the seafarer’s claim for disability benefits.
What is the 240-day rule?	The 240-day rule refers to the maximum period (extendable from the initial 120 days) within which the company-designated physician must assess the seafarer’s medical condition and provide a final declaration.
Does the 240-day rule apply to the seafarer’s personal doctor?	No, the 240-day rule applies to the assessment provided by the company-designated physician, not to the assessment of the seafarer’s personal physician.
What law governs seafarer employment contracts?	The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) governs the employment contracts of Filipino seafarers.
What should a seafarer do if they disagree with the company doctor?	If a seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, they must request a referral to a third doctor jointly agreed upon by the employer and the seafarer.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Dohle Philman Manning Agency, Inc. v. Julius Rey Quinal Doble, G.R. No. 223730, October 4, 2017