RUEL L. GUADALQUIVER v.

SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISE, INC., MISSISSAUGA ENTERPRISE, INC.

When is a seafarer deemed to be permanently or totally disabled?

To ascertain whether the petitioner is entitled to permanent and total disability, the High
Court in Guadalquiver v. Sea Power Shipping Enterprise, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 226200, August
05, 2019, explained the application of the 120-day and 240-day periods in determining the fitness
to work or the degree of disability of the seafarer.

Citing Vergara vs. Hammonio Maritime Services, Inc., the Court has elucidated that the
period of 120 days from repatriation is the duration within which the employer is to determine
the fitness of the seafarer to work or ascertain the degree of his disability; in such a case where
the seafarer remains in need of medical attention, the 120-day period may be extended to a
maximum period of 240 days within which the company-designated doctor must make a definite
declaration on the fitness to work or the degree of the disability of the seafarer. A seafarer is thus
considered permanently and totally disabled when so declared by the company-designated doctor
within the period of 120 or 240 days, as the case may be; or after the lapse of 240 days without
any declaration being issued by the company-designated physician.

In Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. vs. Hernandez, Jr., the Court went further in
enumerating the instances when the seafarer may already pursue a case for full disability
benefits, viz.:

(a) The company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his fitness to engage in sea
duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day period and there is no indication that further
medical treatment would address his temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of the period
to 240 days;

(b) 240 days had lapsed without any certification issued by the company designated physician;

(c) The company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day
period, as the case may be, but his physician of choice and the doctor chosen under Section 20-8(3) of
the POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion;

(d) The company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially permanently disabled but other
doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly with his employer, believed that his disability is not
only permanent but total as well;

(e) The company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently disabled but there
is a dispute on the disability grading;

(f) The company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable or
work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice and the third doctor selected under Section
20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and declared him unfit to work;

(g) The company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the employer
refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and
(h) The company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled within the 120-
day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of said
periods.

To recall, from his repatriation on September 19, 2013, petitioner had been under the care
of the company-designated doctor, who regularly monitored and issued reports on petitioner’s
condition. However, after his physical therapy session on February 28, 2014, petitioner simply
did not return for his treatment. At that time, petitioner was on the 162nd day of treatment, and the
company-designated doctor has not yet issued his definite declaration on petitioner’s condition
for the apparent reason that petitioner was still under treatment and the maximum period of 240
days to issue the certification had not yet lapsed.

It is important to note that when petitioner filed his disability case on March 31, 2014,
only 193 days had lapsed, which is again, within the above-cited 240-day period. This only
means that there were remaining days for the company-designated doctor to issue his assessment
on petitioner’s condition. In fact, prior to the filing of the case, petitioner was under the close
monitoring of the company-designated physician and the latter even assured him that after
completing six physical therapy sessions, he would be given fit-to-work certification. However,
without waiting for such declaration and/or the lapse of the 240-day period, petitioner
prematurely filed his suit even if his cause of action had not yet accrued.

Moreover, the opinion of petitioner’s personal doctor cannot be given credence since it
did not give petitioner the necessary cause of action he lacked when he filed the complaint.
Indeed, while a seafarer has the right to seek the opinion of other doctors, such right may be
availed of on the presumption that the company-designated doctor had already issued a definite
declaration on the condition of the seafarer, and the seafarer finds it disagreeable. Given the lack
of certification from the company-designated doctor, petitioner cannot rely on the assessment
made by his own doctor.

Maximum period of 240 days applies to this case.

In Oriental Shipmanagement Co., Inc. vs. Ocangas, the Court pointed out its ruling in
Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. vs. Munar, where it, in turn, clarified that if the seafarer filed his or
her case for disability benefits before October 6, 2008 (the date the Court promulgated its ruling
in Vergara), the 120-day rule shall apply. However, if the case was filed after October 6, 2008,
as in the case, the 240-day rule elucidated in Vergara and discussed above must be considered.

In this case, while petitioner properly reported to the company-designated doctor upon
his repatriation, he nevertheless did not continue his treatment despite the clear instruction of the
company-designated doctor for him to continue to do so. During this time, it is evident that
petitioner needed further medical attention and the maximum period of 240 days had not yet
lapsed. Hence, petitioner cannot invoke that simply because 120 days passed, he was already
entitled to full disability benefits. As mentioned, the Court itself made it clear in Kestrel that the
240-day rule must be observed in deciding disability benefits cases filed after its ruling in
Vergara.

Petitioner is nonetheless entitled to Grade 11 disability benefits.

Similar to the findings of the CA, the Court decrees that petitioner is nevertheless entitled
to Grade 11 disability rating, as determined by the company-designated doctor within the
specified period of 240 days. The Court gives weight to this finding as neither party refuted that
the company-designated doctor indeed made such diagnosis within the allowable period for him
to do so.

-Obnamia, Cithy D.