G.R. No. 229179 - BENHUR SHIPPING CORPORATION/SUN MARINE SHIPPING S.A. AND EDGAR B. BRUSELAS, VS. ALEX PEÑAREDONDA RIEGO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, respondents Benhur Shipping Corporation, et al. are hereby ordered to pay complainant Alex P. Riego the sum of US$7,465.00 pursuant to the Grade 11 disability assessment 1/3 loss of lifting power as determined by the company designated physician plus 10% attorney's fees. SO ORDERED . [41] The LA held that it was undeniable that the injury suffered by respondent was work-related, the same having been sustained while he was performing his tasks on board his employer's vessel. Based on respondent's narration of events, he was lifting heavy provisions on board the vessel when he felt pain on his lower back. The pain worsened in the following days, and hence, he was given medical assistance and subsequently, medically repatriated. [42] The LA gave credence to the medical assessment provided by the company-designated physician. It found that from the medical report rendered by Dr. Magtira, no disability grading was issued. Rather, it was merely declared that respondent was already permanently unfit to work in any capacity as a seafarer. Likewise, Dr. Magtira did not specifically pronounce respondent's illness. The reason for this appears to be because L4-L5, L5-S1 Disc Bulge is not proper for Grade 1 disability. Respondent does not appear to be suffering from such condition. It was never stated that respondent needs to be assisted by crutches when walking or that his sickness caused him incontinence. The absence of a third medical opinion further compounded the situation. The LA concluded that the company-designated physician's assessment must prevail in view of the facts obtaining in this case. [43] The NLRC Ruling In its July 16, 2015 Decision, the NLRC affirmed the ruling of the LA, to wit: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appeal is denied for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of Labor Arbiter Joanne G. [Hernandez]-Lazo dated February 27, 2015 is AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED . [44] The NLRC held that respondent's claim for permanent and total disability benefits is without basis at all. [45] Respondent's condition does not constitute Grade 1 disability as provided under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC. According to the NLRC, the record is bereft of any showing that respondent needed to be assisted by crutches when walking or that his illness caused him incontinence of urine and feces. [46] Furthermore, respondent's evidence casts serious doubt on the findings that he suffered permanent and total disability. In stark contrast to the detailed medical reports of the company-designated physician, a reading of the first Medical Report [47] of Dr. Magtira, dated June 5, 2014 would show that it was not supported by any diagnostic test or procedure sufficient to refute the results of those administered to respondent by the company-designated physician. Dr. Magtira's assessment of "permanent disability" for respondent merely hinged on a physical examination conducted during a single consultation with him. [48] On the other hand,