The previous article referred to the case of Bunayog vs. Foscon Shipmanagement Inc., G.R. No. 253480, where the Supreme Court En Banc laid down the guidelines to govern disability benefit claims where, following conflicting findings from the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s physician of choice, the seafarer subsequently requests for a referral to a third doctor. To complete the discussion, here are the rules once the seafarer has instituted the complaint against his or her employer.

1. Upon the filing of the complaint and during the mandatory conference, the LA shall give the parties a period of 15 days to secure the services of a third doctor and an additional period of 30 days for the third doctor to submit his/her reassessment.

2. If the services of a third doctor were not secured on account of the employer’s refusal to give heed to the LA’s request or due to the failure of the parties to mutually agree as to the third doctor, the labor tribunals should make conclusive between the parties the findings of the seafarer’s physician of choice, unless the same is clearly biased, i.e., lacking in scientific basis or unsupported by the medical records of the seafarer. In such a case, the inherent merits of the respective medical findings and the totality of evidence shall be considered by the labor tribunals or courts.

If, however, the failure to refer the seafarer’s condition to a third doctor after directive from the LA was due to the fault of the seafarer, then the labor tribunals and the courts should make conclusive between the parties the findings of the company-designated physician, except when the company-designated physician’s medical conclusion is found to have been issued with a clear bias in favor of the employer, i.e., lacking in scientific basis, or unsupported by the medical records of the seafarer, as held in Dionio v. Trans-Global Maritime Agency. Inc. When such exception applies, the inherent merits of the respective medical findings shall be considered by the tribunals or court.

3. If, despite the employer’s failure to respond to the seafarer’s valid request for a third doctor, the parties, during mandatory conference, were able to secure the services of a third doctor, and the latter was able to make a reassessment on the seafarer’s condition, the third doctor’s findings should be final and binding between the parties. In such a case, the employer’s refusal to respond to the seafarer’s valid request for a third doctor referral should be considered immaterial.

In Mr. Bunayog’s case, while he was able to comply with the aforementioned guidelines and that his employer refused to act on his request for a third referral, the Court held that the exception shall apply since the medical report issued by Mr. Bunayog’s physician was without any scientific and medical basis. While the doctor’s medical certificate enumerated the tests which Mr. Bunayog underwent, the results of such tests were not discussed nor correlated to the finding of unfitness to work as a seafarer.

The report from the company-designated physician, on the other hand, was deemed more credible by the Court since it sufficiently demonstrated the extensive medical treatment that enabled the doctor to make a final diagnosis of Mr. Bunayog’s health condition.

Lastly, the Court emphasized that while labor rules must be applied fairly, reasonably, and liberally in favor of the seafarers, they cannot be taken to sanction award of disability benefits anchored on insubstantial evidence.

For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cabdo@divinalaw.com.