LAMBERTO M. DE LEON, petitioner, vs. MAUNLAD TRANS,
INC., SEACHEST ASSOCIATES, et al., respondents
G.R. No. 215293 | Feb. 8, 2017
FACTS:
While onboard the vessel M/S Carnival Liberty
where he was hired as Team Headwaiter, petitioner experienced uncontrollable
blinking, shaking and difficulty in speaking and breathing for 3 weeks. As
such, he was referred to a neurologist and underwent MRI and CT scan. He was
then diagnosed with “cerebral atrophy” and was advised to seek a neurologist in
Miami, Florida where the vessel was headed. But due to the severity of his
condition, petitioner was advised to be repatriated.
When he arrived in the Philippines, he
reported to his agency and was referred to the Metropolitan Medical Services,
Inc. for treatment and when his condition did not improve, he sought treatment
from a specialist in internal medicine-cardiology who diagnosed his illness as
T/C Parkinson’s Disease; hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease
and declared him unfit for duty in whatever capacity as a seaman.
Respondents refused to give petitioner full
compensability based on the opinion of the company-designated physician that
petitioner had no history of heavy metal exposure onboard, thus, the condition
does not appear to be work-related or work-aggravated.
The LA found petitioner’s claim
meritorious. According to the Labor Arbiter, those illness not listed under
Section 32 of the POEA-SEC are disputably presumed as work-related; thus, the
burden is on the respondents to present substantial evidence that there is no
causal connection between the nature of the seafarer’s work and his illness, or
that the risk of contracting the illness was not increased by his working
condition.
The NLRC affirmed the Decision of the LA.
It held that the nature of the petitioner’s employment is presumed to be the
cause of the illness because it occurred during his stint with respondents and
that his employment need not be the sole factor in the growth, development or
acceleration of his illness as it is enough that it contributed to the
development thereof.
The CA reversed and set aside the Decision
of the NLRC. According to the CA, Parkinson’s Disease is neither listed as a
disability under Sec. 32 of the POEA-SEC, nor is it considered an occupational
disease under Sec. 32-A thereof. Thus, the CA held that it is imperative that
petitioner establish the existence of a causal connection between his illness
and the work for which he was contracted for.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner’s illness is
work-related or not
RULING:
For disability to be compensable under
Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC, two elements must concur:
(1)
The injury or illness must be
work-related; and
(2)
The work-related injury or
illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract.
The POEA-SEC defines a work-related injury
as “injuries resulting in disability or death arising out of and in the course
of employment,” and a work-related illness as “any sickness resulting to
disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section
32-A of this Contract with the conditions set therein satisfied.”
For illnesses not mentioned under Section
32, the POEA- SEC creates a disputable presumption in favor of the seafarer
that these illnesses are work-related. Notwithstanding the presumption, the
claimant-seafarer must still prove by substantial evidence that his work
conditions caused or, at least, increased the risk of contracting the disease.
In order to establish compensability of a non-occupational disease, reasonable
proof of work connection is sufficient – direct causal relation is not required.
Probability, not the ultimate degree of certainty, is the test of proof in
compensation proceedings.
Working on any vessel, whether it be a
cruise ship or not, can still expose any employee to harsh conditions. In this
case, aside from the usual conditions experienced by seafarers, such as the
harsh conditions of the sea, long hours of work, stress brought about by being
away from their families, petitioner, a team headwaiter, also performed the
duties of a “fire watch” and assigned to welding works, all of which
contributed to petitioner’s stress, fatigue and extreme exhaustion.
Comments
Post a Comment