G.R. No. 245857 - ANGELITO S. MAGNO, VS. CAREER PHILIPPINES SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC., COLUMBIA SHIPMANAGEMENT, LTD., AND VERLOU CARMELINO.

Ruling

accordingly, ordered respondents, jointly and severally, to pay Magno total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of USD 60,000.00, or its peso equivalent at the time of payment, plus 10% attorney's fees. [20] The LA ruled that Magno is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits because at the time of the filing of his complaint, more than 120 days had already elapsed from his repatriation, and he remained incapable of being employed as an able seaman. Moreover, while a third doctor's opinion was not resorted to in this case, which would generally render the company-designated physician's assessment controlling, the LA held that the same is merely directory. [21] Unsatisfied with the LA's ruling, respondents appealed [22] before the NLRC. The NLRC Ruling In a Decision [23] dated August 30, 2016, the NLRC affirmed with modification the LA's ruling, dropping Carmelino as party-respondent. The NLRC ruled that the assessment of the company-designated physician is not final, binding, or conclusive on the seafarer, nor on the labor tribunals or the courts. Seafarers are entitled to secure a second opinion from their chosen physician and in case of conflict between the two doctors' findings, the same shall be referred to a third doctor to settle the conflicting assessments. Moreover, the NLRC highlighted that what the POEA-SEC compensates is not the injury, but rather the incapacity of the seafarer to work resulting in the impairment of the latter's earning capacity. [24] In this case, the NLRC noted that Magno's request from respondents for referral to a third doctor remained unheeded. As such, the conflicting assessments remained unresolved. Since Magno can no longer perform the work for which he is trained or is accustomed to, thus permanently impairing his earning capacity, he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits. [25] Undeterred, respondents moved for reconsideration while Magno moved for partial reconsideration, both of which were denied in a Resolution [26] dated October 27, 2016. Determined, respondents elevated the case before the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The CA Ruling In a Decision [27] dated January 26, 2018, the CA granted the certiorari petition before it. Consequently, the CA reversed and set aside the NLRC ruling, ordering respondents to pay Magno, instead, the amount of USD 17,540.00 representing his permanent and partial disability benefits under the POEA-SEC, and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award. [28] According to the CA, even if Magno's medical condition remained unresolved after the maximum 240-day period of medical treatment, the latter is not automatically entitled to permanent and total disability benefits for to do so would disregard the Schedule of Disability Compensation under the POEA-SEC. Instead, the assessment should take into consideration the nature and severity of the work-related injuries in order to arrive at