SC BLAZES RULES ON THIRD-DOCTOR REFERRAL; IMPOSES STRICTER PROCEDURE ON THE SEAFARER’S DUTY TO ACTIVATE THE PROCESS.
A seafarer was diagnosed with pneumonia while on board and declared fit for work by the company-designated physician. However, the seafarer’s independent doctor declared him unfit for sea duty. In its recent decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the duty of the seafarer to send a written request to refer the conflicting medical findings to a third doctor which must be accompanied by the medical report from his/her independent doctor.
The Supreme Court laid down the following rules in cases where there are conflicting findings from the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s physician of choice:
“1. A seafarer who receives a contrary medical finding from his/her doctor must send to the employer, within a reasonable period, a written request to refer the conflicting medical findings to a third doctor, to be mutually agreed upon by the parties, and whose findings shall be final and binding between the parties.
2. The written request must be accompanied by or must indicate the contents of the medical report from his/her doctor. Otherwise, the written request shall be considered invalid and as if none had been requested.
3. In case there was no valid request for a third doctor referral from the seafarer, the employer may opt to ignore the request or to refuse to assent, either verbal or written, to such request without violating the pertinent provision of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration – Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).
Accordingly, if a complaint is subsequently filed by the seafarer against the employer before the labor tribunal, and the parties, after a directive from the LA pursuant to NLRC En Banc Resolution No. 008-14, fail to secure the services of a third doctor, the labor tribunals shall hold the findings of the company-designated physician final and binding, unless the same is found to be 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 shall be considered by the tribunals or court.
If, however, the parties were able to secure the services of a third doctor during mandatory conference, the latter’s assessment of the seafarer’s medical condition should be considered final and binding.
4. In case of a valid written request from the seafarer for a third doctor referral, the employer must, within 10 days from receipt, send a written reply stating that the procedure shall be initiated by the employer. After a positive response from the employer, the parties are given 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 assessment. The assessment of the third doctor shall be final and binding.
In case, however, the parties fail to mutually agree as to the third doctor, a complaint for disability benefits may be filed by the seafarer against the employer. The labor tribunals shall then consider and peruse the inherent merits of the respective medical findings of the parties’ doctors before making a conclusion as to the condition of the seafarer.
5. If, however, the employer ignores the written request of the seafarer, or sends a written reply to the seafarer refusing to initiate the referral to a third doctor procedure, or sends a written reply giving its assent to the request beyond 10 days from receipt of the written request of the seafarer, the employer is considered in violation of the POEA-SEC. The seafarer may now institute a complaint against his or her employer.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.”
The Court found that the seafarer sufficiently complied with the requirement of a valid written request to refer the matter to a third doctor and that the employer failed to respond to such request, which fact could have made the findings of the seafarer’s physician conclusive between the parties. However, the Court likewise found that the seafarer’s contrary medical opinion did not discuss nor correlate the test results to the finding of unfitness to work as a seafarer. Thus, the findings were deemed vague and inconclusive. This justified the application of the exceptional circumstance under the guidelines – when the findings are “clearly biased, i.e., lacking in scientific basis or unsupported by the medical records of the seafarer.” The Court then considered that the findings of the company-designated physician to be more credible given the extensive medical treatment made before arriving at a final diagnosis.
The above guidelines have finally put an end to the confusion in the past Supreme Court decisions of what constitutes “actively” or “expressly” requesting for referral to a third doctor. Most importantly, the rules were pronounced in an en banc decision. Thus, previous rulings that a mere act of furnishing the employer of a second opinion may be deemed as notice or demand to avail the third doctor procedure have already been overturned and no longer hold true in our jurisdiction.
(Bunayog v. CA, et.al., G.R. No. 253480, May 4, 2023, En Banc. Note: The full text of the decision shall be uploaded soon to the Supreme Court’s website)