7.
MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION AND/OR CRUISE SHIPS
CATERING AND SERVICES INTERNATIONAL N.V., petitioners, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION)
AND ROMMEL B. CEDOL, respondents.
FACTS:
On July 14, 2004, the respondent entered into a seven-month contract of
employment with petitioner Magsaysay Maritime Corporation (Magsaysay
Maritime) for its foreign principal, Cruise Ships Catering and Services
International N.V. (Cruise Ships); he was employed as an assistant
housekeeping manager on board the vessel Costa Mediterranea with a basic
monthly salary of US$482.00. The respondent submitted himself to the
required PreEmployment Medical Examination (PEME), and was pronounced
fit to work.Respondent had previously worked as housekeeping cleaner and
assistant housekeeping manager on board the petitioners’ other vessels from
2000 to 2004.
November 2004, the respondent felt pain in his lower right quadrant.He
underwent a procedure called exploratory laparotomy which revealed a
massive tumor in the terminal ileum and in the ascending colon near the
hepatic flexture.the respondent underwent a surgical procedure called right
hemicolectomy with end to endilectransverse anastomosis.
The respondent was discharged from the hospital and repatriated to the
Philippines on February 1, 2005. The respondent was placed under the
medical care and supervision of the company-designated physician, Dr.
Susannah Ong-Salvador (Dr.Ong-Salvador). She found him suffering from
lymphoma, and declared his illness to be non-work related.
The respondent was brought to the Chinese General Hospital and underwent
another surgery. Thereafter, Medical Progress Report found the respondent’s
recurrent lymphoma to be in complete remission, and declared him “fit to
resume sea duties” after undergoing six (6) sessions of chemotherapy.
The respondent filed before the Labor Arbiter a complaint for total and
permanent disability benefits, reimbursement of medical and hospital
expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees against the petitioners claiming that
the illness is work related.
The Labor Arbiter’s Decision
Labor Arbiter Marita V. Padolina (LA Padolina) ruled in respondent’s favour.
The respondent’s illness to be work-related, hence compensable.She
explained that the respondent’s work need not be the main cause of his
illness; it is enough that his employment had contributed even in a small
degree to the development of the disease.She also ruled that the respondent
was not fit to work as a seafarer because he had undergone chemotherapy
The NLRC Ruling
The NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision in toto in its resolution.The
respondent is not fit to work as a seafarer because he is suffering from
recurrent lymphoma—a sickness that requiredhim undergo
chemotherapy.The NLRC explained that the respondent is in a state of
permanent total disability because he can no longer earn wages in the same
kind of work. There was a reasonable connection between the nature of the
respondent’s work as assistant housekeeping manager and the development
of his illness
The CA Decision
The CA, in its decision denied the petition for lack of merit.It is enough that
the work has contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the
worker’s disease. The Courts are not bound by the assessment of the
companydesignated physician. The findings of the physician that he is fit to
work despite the fact that he had to undergo chemotherapy is inconsistent.
ISSUE:
Whether the illness of the respondent is work-related thus compensable
RULING:
We find the petition meritorious.
The Rule on Disability Benefits
Entitlement of seamen on overseas work to disability benefits is a
matter governed, not only by medical findings, but by law and by
contract.Section 20 (B), paragraph 3 of the 2000 POEA-SEC20
reads:
“Section 20-B. Compensation and Benefits for Injury or Illness. The
liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or
illness during the term of his contract are as follows: x xxx 6. In case of
permanent total or partial disability of the seafarer caused by either injury or
illness the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance with the schedule of
benefits enumerated in Section 32 of this Contract. Computation of his
benefits arising from an illness or disease shall be governed by the rates and
the rules of compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease was
contracted.”
For disability to be compensable under Section 20 (B) of the 2000
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. Thus, it must also be shown that there is a causal
connection between the seafarer’s illness or injury and the work for
which he had been contracted.
The 2000 POEA-SEC defines “work-related injury” as “injury(ies) resulting
in disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment” and
“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.” It is the company-designated
physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman’s
disability.
Thus, the seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the
company-designated physician within three (3) days from arrival for
diagnosis and treatment. For the duration of the treatment but in no case to
exceed 120 days, the seaman is on temporary total disability as he is totally
unable to work. He receives his basic wage during this period until he is
declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the
company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is
defined under the POEA-SEC and by applicable Philippine laws. If the 120-
day initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made because the
seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total
disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to
the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent
partial or total disability already exists.The seaman may of course also be
declared fitto work at any time such declaration is justified by his medical
condition.
In the case before us, there is no dispute that the respondent reported to
the company-designated physician for treatment immediately upon
repatriation. Problems arose when he was diagnosed with lymphoma, and
the company-designated physician ruled this illness to be non-work-related.
Like other cancers, lymphoma occurs when lymphocytes are in a state of
uncontrolled cell growth and multiplication. It is treatable with
chemotherapy, and, in some cases, radiotherapy and/or bone marrow
transplantation, and can be curable, depending on the histology, type, and
stage of the disease.
Lymphoma is neither listed as a disability under Section 32
(Schedule of Disability or Impediment for Injuries Suffered and
Diseases Including Occupational Diseases or Illness Contracted) of
the 2000 POEA-SEC nor listed as an occupational disease under
Section 32-A thereof.Nonetheless, Section 20 (B), paragraph (4) provides
that “those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are
disputably presumed as work-related.”
The burden is therefore placed upon the respondent to present substantial
evidence, or such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to justify a conclusion that there is a causal connection between
the nature of his employment and his illness, or that the risk of contracting
the illness was increased by his working conditions. This, the respondent
failed to do. In fact, a careful review of the records shows that the
respondent did not, by way of a contrary medical finding, assail the diagnosis
arrived at by the company designated physician.
Dr.Ong-Salvador was able to sufficiently explain her basis in concluding that
the respondent’s illness was not work-related: she found the respondent not
to have been exposed to any carcinogenic fumes, or to any viral infection in
his workplace. Her findings were arrived at after the respondent was made
to undergo a physical, neurological and laboratory examination, taking into
consideration his (respondent’s) past medical history, family history, and
social history.
Under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code (ECC
Rules), lymphoma is considered occupational only when contracted by
operating room personnel due to exposure to anestheticswhichis not the
case herein. The fact that respondent passed the company’s PEME is of no
moment.The PEME merely determines whether one is “fit to work” at
sea or “fit for sea service,” it does not state the real state of health
of an applicant.The “fit to work” declaration in the respondent’s
PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from
any ailment.

Since Dr.Ong-Salvador deemed the respondent as fit to resume sea

duties, then such declaration should be given credence, considering
the amount of time and effort she gave to monitoring and treating
the respondent’s condition.

We emphasize that the constitutional policy to provide full

protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to oppress
employers. Justice to be dispensed with in the light of established
facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence

In sum, we hold that the respondent is not entitled to total and

permanent disability benefits for his failure to refute the
companydesignated physician’s findings that: (1) his illness was
not workrelated; and (2) he was fit to resume sea duties.
8. DOMINGO VICENTE, petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, respondent.
Facts:
The petitioner, was formerly employed as a nursing attendant at the
Veterans Memorial Medical Center in Quezon City. At the age of forty-five,
and after having rendered more than twenty-five years of government
service, he applied for optional retirement (effective August 16, 1981) under
the provisions of Section 12(c) of Republic Act No. 1616, giving as reason
therefor his inability to continue working as a result of his physical
disability.The petitioner likewise filed with the Government Service Insurance
System (GSIS) an application for “income benefits claim for payment.” Both
applications were accompanied by the necessary supporting papers. The
attending physician of the petitioner issued a Physician’s certification and
classified him as being under “permanent total disability.”
The petitioner’s application for income benefits claim payment was granted
but only for permanent partial disability (PPD) compensation or for a period
of nineteen months starting from August 16, 1981 up to March 1983.As a
consequence of his motion for reconsideration, the petitioner was granted
the equivalent of additional four (4) months benefits.Still unsatisfied, the
petitioner again sent a letter stating that he should be compensated no less
than for “permanent total disability.”the said manager informed the
petitioner that his request had been denied.
The case was elevated to Employees Compensation Commission (ECC).
During the pendency of the case, the petitionr informed EEC that he was
confined. The respondent rendered a decision affirming the ruling of the
GSIS Employees’ Disability Compensation and dismissed the petitioner’s
appeal.
Petitioner’s Contention:
His disability is “permanent total” and not “permanent partial” as classified
by the respondent Commission.the petitioner points to the clinical evaluation
and certification earlier adverted to issued by his attending physicians at the
Veterans Memorial Medical Center. His confinement was likewise was a direct
result of his other ailments as previously diagnosed (before his retirement)
by his attending physician.
Respondent’s Contention:
The findings of the petitioner’s attending physician is not binding on the
GSIS, nor on the Commission, as the proper evaluation of an employee’s
degree of disability exclusively belongs to the GSIS medical experts who
have specialized on the subject.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner should be granted with permanent total disability
benefits
RULING:
The petition is impressed with merit.
Employee’s disability under the Labor Code is classified into three
distinct categories: (a) temporary total disability; (b) permanent
total disability; and (c) permanent partial disability.
SEC. 2. Disability—(a) A total disability is temporary if as a result of
the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform any
gainful occupation for a continuous period not exceeding 120 days,
except as otherwise provided in Rule X of these Rules.
A disability is total and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness
the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous
period exceeding 120 days except as otherwise provided for in Rule X of
these Rules.
A disability is partial permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the
employee suffers a permanent partial loss of the use of any part of
his body.
Here, there is no question that the petitioner is not under “temporary total
disability” as defined by law.
Comments and Annotations on the Workmen’s Compensation Act by Severo
M. Pucan and Cornelio R. Besinga, that “total disability does not mean a
state of absolute helplessness, but means disablement of the
employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or a work of
similar nature, that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or
any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment conclusion is that he suffers from permanent total disability.The sympathy of
could do;” the law on social security is toward its beneficiaries, and the law, by its own
terms,18 requires a construction of utmost liberality in their favor.
It may therefore be inferred from the Court’s pronouncements that while
“permanent total disability” invariably results in an employee’s loss
of work or inability to perform his usual work, “permanent partial
disability,” on the other hand, occurs when an employee loses the use
of any particular anatomical part of his body which disables him to
continue with his former work.

Stated otherwise, the test of whether or not an employee suffers from

“permanent total disability” is a showing of the capacity of the
employee to continue performing his work notwithstanding the
disability he incurred.Thus, if by reason of the injury or sickness he
sustained, the employee is unable to perform his customary job for
more than 120 days and he does not come within the coverage of
Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensability (which,
in a more detailed manner, describes what constitutes temporary total
disability), then the said employee undoubtedly suffers from
“permanent total disability” regardless of whether or not he loses
the use of any part of his body.

In the case at bar, the petitioner’s permanent total disability is established

beyond doubt by several factors and circumstances.The decision of the
respondent Commission even admits that the petitioner “retired from
government service at the age of 45.”13 Considering that the petitioner was
only 45 years old when he retired and still entitled, under good behavior, to
20 more years in service, the approval of his optional retirement application
proves that he was no longer fit to continue in his employment.

For optional retirement is allowed only upon proof thatthe employee-

applicant is already physically incapacitated to render sound and efficient
service. The doctor’s certification as to the nature of the claimant’s disability
may be given credence as he normally would not make a false certification.
The fact that the petitioner was granted benefits amounting to the
equivalent of twenty-three months shows that the petitioner was unable to
perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days.

There being no showing, as we mentioned earlier, that the petitioner’s

disability is “temporary total” as defined by the law,the inescapable
 9. PABLO A. AUSTRIA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND
EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (SOCIAL SECURITY
SYSTEM), (CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE TARLAC), respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Pablo A. Austria was employed as bag piler at Central Azucarera
de Tarlac from June 1, 1977 to July 20, 1997. his duties were to: carry and
pile sacks of refined sugar; relocate and move stock piles for shifting or
return to the refinery;assist the production checker in random weighing of
production; clean the warehouse, piling conveyor and its surroundings; assist
in the repair and maintenance work during off-season; and do other related
work assigned to him from time to time by his superior.
In 1994, petitioner began to feel severe back pain and thereafter, underwent
an MRI which revealed a small discprotrusion at L4 and L5 level. He likewise
underwent Laminectomy and the x-ray photographs revealed osteoarthritis
of the lumbar spine. Due to this, he filed with the SSS a claim for
compensation benefits. The claim was granted and petitioner was awarded
permanent partial disability benefits for eight (8) months starting September
1, 1995, a second release for seven (7) months starting May 10, 1996, and a
third release for fifteen (15) months starting April 1, 1997.
Petitioner thereafter requested the SSS for conversion of his permanent
partial disability benefit to permanent total disability benefit. The SSS denied
the request stating that there is no progression on the illness of the
petitioner. On appeal, the ECC affirmed the decision of the SSS. The
appellate court on appeal, dismissed the petition, ruling that the law does
not allow the conversion of permanent partial disability to permanent total
disability.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the conversion of his disability to
permanent partial too permanent total
RULING:
We find merit in the petition.
A disability is total and permanent if as a result of the injury or
sickness, the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation
for a continuous period exceeding 120 days; and a disability is
partial and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness, the
employee suffers a permanent partial loss of the use of any part of
his body.
The test of whether or not an employee suffers from ‘permanent
total disability’ is a showing of the capacity of the employee to
continue performing his work notwithstanding the disability he
incurred. Disability is intimately related to one’s earning capacity.
It should be understood less on its medical significance but more
on the loss of earning capacity
The Court characterized permanent total disability as:
“disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of
work, or work of a similar nature that she was trained for, or
accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of her
mentality and attainment could do. It does not mean an absolute
helplessness but rather an incapacity to perform gainful work
which is expected to be permanent.What is necessary is that the
injury must be such that she cannot pursue her usual work and
earn therefrom.
We find petitioner entitled to permanent total disability benefit under the
law. Petitioner has been employed as bag piler for twenty (20) years at the
Central Azucarera de Tarlac. His duties require him to carry heavy loads of
refined sugar and to perform other manual work. Since his work obviously
taxes so much on his back, his illness which affects his lumbar spine renders
him incapable of doing his usual work as bag piler. Hence, his disability to
perform his regular duties may be considered total and permanent.
There is nothing in the law that prohibits the conversion of
permanent partial disability benefit to permanent total disability
benefit if it is shown that the employee’s ailment qualifies as such.
Furthermore, the grant of permanent total disability benefit to an
employee who was initially compensated for permanent partial
disability but is found to be suffering from permanent total
disability would not be prejudicial to the government to give it
reason to deny the claim.

These rulings are consistent with the primary purpose of PD 626,

that is, to provide meaningful protection to the working class
against the hazards of disability, illness and other contingencies
resulting in the loss of income,14 as well as the Constitutional
mandate to afford full protection to labor.15