® ‘Republic ofthe Philippines Supreme Court ‘Manila SECOND DIVISION INTERCREW SHIPPING G.R. No. 229299 AGENCY, INC, STAR EMIRATES MARINE SERVICES Present ANDIOR GREGORIO ORTEGA, Petitioners, PERLAS-BERNABE, $.A./, Chairperson, HERNANDO, INTING, versus = DELOS SANTOS and GAERLAN, J, Promuleated! OFRECINO B. CALANTOC, Respondent. 0B JUL DECISION INTING, ‘This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari' under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civii Procedure that seeks to annul and set aside the Decision’ dated November 27, 2017 and the Resolution’ dated May 10, 2018 of the Court 0” Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. SP No. 141153, and to reinstace the Decisina’ dated March 31, 2015 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissing the complaint for disability ‘compensation for lace of merit. Zac aowa enter fe Cu) wi Zen Cate apn caiDesison a GRNo.2390%0 The Ameoedents ‘On March 14, 2008, Intererew Philippines Agency, Ine. (Intererew Shipping) hired Offecino B. Calantoc (respondent) for its foreizn principal, Star Emirates Marine Services (Star Emirates), as fourth fngincer for a period, of 12 months with abasic monthly salary: of 1US$700.00. As such, respondent underwent a pre-employment medical ‘examination and was declared “fit for sea duty,” despite his high blood pressure.* (On March 20, 2008, respondent was deployed to join the vessel MY Oryx, Four months into his contrat, respondent already experienced a sluring of speech, weakness on his right side, and wes agnosed with a mild stroke. However, he still continued his work on board the vessel, but he later on requested to be repattated when his condition worsened.’ On July 14, 2008, respondent arrived in the Philippines. He immediately reported to Intererew Shipping, Star Emirates and Gregorio nega, as the PresidenvGeneral Manager of Intererew Shipping (collectively, ptitionsrs) and requested for medical assistance, but to ho avail. Respondent made several requests, but-were repeatedly refsed "He was then constrained te consult a doctor at his own expense” ‘On January £9, 2009, respondent then underwent a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) examination which revealed a lange convexity meningion a tumor in the let frontoparietal region. On the samme date, respondent was admitted to the University of Santo Tomas Hospital due to dhsphasia: He was also assessed with meningioma, left parietal convexity, hypertension stage 2. On respondent's 10" day in the hospital, he underwent a surgery on his skull, ie, a “Tf fromtoparieral ‘craniotomy for excision of meningioma and duraplast).™ * 1.015. Minion ator at eo embed cnr he tn pn cod Fett ll va Tecmo mening emt wel ance once te ‘prominent ated 3)Desision a GRNo. 259209 Respondent now claimed that because of hs illness he was unable to retum to his customary work as a seafiver for more than 120 days, Petitioners repeatedly refused to grant him disability benefits, Thus, he filed a complaint clsiming éissbility compensation, payment of medical ‘expenses, damages, and attomey's fees" Petitioners, on the other hand, asserted that there was no accident ‘or medical incident that happened on board the vessel during the period ‘of respondent's employment; that respondent only requested to be signed off duc to @ pre-existing high blood pressure; that upon respondent's arrival, he was relemed to the company-designated physician, but fefused to undergo post-employment medical examination; and that Fespondent opted to collet his final pay and infact, executed a release in petitioners favor. For the petitioners, respondent failed to prove that he suffered a Work-related illness during the term. of his employment that respondent's claim had already been rendered stale by his inaction for {v0 years as when he was repatriated on July 15, 2008 and only filed the ‘complaint on December 21, 2010." Ruling ofthe Labor Arbiter (LA) On August 28, 2014, LA Jaime M, Reyno rendered a Decision”, the dispositive portion of which reads WHEREFORE, promises considered, jalgment is herchy endered ordering Intrerew Shipping. Ageny/Str Emies maine Services Gresorn Ortega to pny’ complainant Ofesino B Calntoe ‘he amount of SIXTY THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($60.00000) ‘epresentng fll disability benef plus en peer (109) heen a2 snd for atomey’s fer, Respondent are likewise abet pay emplainan the anoint of 557,062.50 as medial veimbursmit pis the amount a [US62,800 0 as icknes wage Allo laims are dismised SOORDIRED."Decision H GRNo. 230099 Ruling ofthe NLRC On March 3! 2015, the NLRC rendered a Decision, with Commissioner Nieves F. Vivar-De Castro, dissenting. The dispositive Portion of the Decision reads inthis wise: WHEREFORE, premises considers, the appeal is GRANTED; anche assed Decision of the Labor Arbiter s SET ASIDE, The complaint is hereby DISMISSED for ok of mari SOORD! RED." Respondent then fled » Motion for Reconsideration.” On May 15, 21 Resolution." the NLRC denied the motion through a In his Petition for Cerviorar under Rule 68 of the Rules of Court, before the CA, respondent raised the following. grinds for the later consideration, fo wit L THE NLRC] (SixrA DIVISION) GRAVELY ABUSED [THE'R] DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE {LA TLE (NLRC) (SIXTH DIVISION) GRAVELY ABUSED [THEIR] DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, DISENTITLING [RESPONDENT] ‘TO PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILICY BENEFITS() MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT AND FULL SICKNESS ALLOWANCE AS STATED IN THE CONTRACT AND THE POEA STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, |. THE NLRC] (SIXTH DIVISION) GRAVELY ABUSED [THEIR] DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK O& EXCESS OF JURISDICTION DISMISSING "THE CASEDecision a GRNp. 239209 DISENTITLING [RESPONDENT] TO DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FES™ Ruling ofthe CA 2017, the CA rendered the assailed Decision” finding. merit in the petition. It approved the Dissenting Opinion of Commissioner Nieves E. Vivar-De Castzo as to why respondent's iness is compensable. The dispositive portion oF the assailed Decision reads as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, he instant Petition is horety GRANTED. Accordingly the Decision ated 31 March 2013 ‘and Resoltion ued 15 May 2015 rendered by the Nationa Labor Relations Commsion is heeby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and he Devsion of the Cabor Aber dated 28 August 204 i8 REINSTATED with MODIFICATION, in that atoms Tes in the !mount of one th asand US dollars (USI, 00000) os eqivlen fn Philippine pesos, computed tthe exchange rate peving at he tine ‘or atl payment should be pa, The monetary jument dv 1 the pene shall er legal interest at the rate ots percent (94 ox annum oon finaly ofthe Dectston unt ily st, SO ORDERED. Feeling agarieved, petitioners filed a Motion’ for Reconsideration, On May 10, 2018, the CA issued the assailed Resolution” denying the motion, Hence the instant petition Issues THAT RESPONDENTSEAFARER'S SIGN. OFF FROM THE \VESSEL WAS DUE TO WORK-RELATED MEDICAL GROUNDS CANNOT BE PRESUMED. RECORDS OF THIS CASE REVEALDecision 6 GN, 259200 ‘THAT RESPONDENT SIGNED OFF ON 15 JULY 2008 DUE TO HIS VOLUNTARY REQUEST CIRCUMSTANCES. SUBSEQUENT TO RESPONDENT'S. SIGN OFF BELIE THE CLAIM, RESPONDENT DID NOt DEMAND FOR POST-EM LOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION WITHIN 3 DAYS FROM ARRIVAL ~ INSTEAD IIE RECEIVED HIS FINAL WAGES ON 22 JULY 2008, IN. SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM RESPONDENT PRESENTED A MEDICAL ABSTRACT DATED 20 FEBRUARY 2009, 7 MONTHS “AFTER HIS. SIGN. OFF, MEANWHILE, "THE COMPLAINT FOR. DISABILITY COMPENSATION WAS FILED ONLY ON 26 JANUARY 2011 ALMOST 3 YEARS AFTER SIGN OFF, ‘THERE 1S NO PROOF ON RECORD THAT RESPONDENT'S ALLEGED ILLSESS 18 WORK-RELATED, UNDER THE POFA CONTRACT, ONLY WORK-RELATED ILLNESSES SUTFERED DURING THE ERM OF EMPLOYMENT ARE COMPENSABLE. WORK-RELATION CANNOT BE PRESUMED. NO LESS THAN THE SUPREM: COURT HAS RULED THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVE WORK-RELATION BELONGS TO. THE SEAFARER WI DIS CLAIMING COMPENSATION. THE CLAIM WAS DENIED BY PETITIONERS OW JUST AND VALID “GROUNDS. RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY'S Flas nthe vial) Our Ring The petition is without meri “Preliminarily, the Court stresses the distinet_approach in reviewing @ CAs rung ina labor case, In a Rule 45 review, the Coit ‘examines the eorresiess of the CA’s Decision in contrast with the review of jurisdictional errors under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 43 limits the review to questions of law. In ruling for legal correctness the Court views the CA Decision in the same context thet the petition for certiorari was prsented to the CA. Hence, the Court has to examine the CA's Decision from the prism of whether the CA correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC devision.” >» Pai: PhtyeineTvemarine Cag, G:, No 2177, Noh 1,219 UST "Sri Monger Se Ou 13, 1220) sing Cares ngs Coast, APL. O16,Decision 7 GRNo. 239299 “In labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when its findings and conclusions are not supported. by substantial evidence. which refers to that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a eonelusion ‘Thus, if the NLRC's ruling has bass in the evidence and the applicable law and jurisprudence, then no grave abuse of discretion exists and the CA should so declare and, accordingly, dismiss the petition.” Here, the CA found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of iseretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it granted petitioner's appeal before it. The Court defines grave abuse of discretion ay sch capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of Jurisdiction * It must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a Positive duty or a virual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by fawy oto ‘ct at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility Given the forezoing, the Court finds that the CA did not ere in ascribing grave abuie of discretion on the part of the NLRC as the laters finding that there is no sufficient evidence in te ease to conelude ‘that respondent suffered from a work-related iliness and is. therefore, not entitled to permaner and total disability benefits is obviously not in accord with evidence on record and settled legal principles of labor law. ln this ease, respondent executed his employment contract with petitioners on March 14, 2008. Thus, the provisions of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC)” are applicable and should govern the parties’ relations, Section 20(8X5) ofthe 2000 POEA-SEC pros SECTION 20, COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS ', COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OF ILLNESS Scena ora SoeDesison 8 GRNo. 239209 The lables ofthe employer when the sairer sles work-related {injury rites during the term a his contract area lls 6. tn case of present otal oe pai isabiliy ofthe sear cased by either injure illess the sefner shall be compensted ft cordance with se scale of benefits enurited in Section 22 of his Conta: Computation of his benefits arin fom am ile of sca shall be aovemed by the rates andthe rates of compensation applicable tthe time the hes or dseise was conta Given the foregoing provision, there ate two elements that must, concur before an injury oF illness is considered compensable: frst that the injury or illness must be work-related; and second, that the work. related: injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarers! employment contract.” ‘The “work-related injury,” under the 2000 POEA-SEC, is defined 8s “injuryies)”resu fing in disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment; “work-related ilness” is defined as “any sickness resulting 10 disability’ or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 39-A of thi contract with the conditions set thee satisfied,” to wit 1. The seafarers work must involve th sks described herein: 2- The disease was contacted a 9 res ofthe seafiers expose to the deseribed ss 5. The discase was contract within + pied of esposure and unor eh oer ators necessty to contac ad 4 There was no orious negligence onthe prof the seafare In this case, i i undisputed that inthe Pte-Emplayment Medical Examination (PEMEY” of respondent, under his medical history, he suffered from or hac been told that he has a high blood pressure. It Tikewise beyond dispute that tespondent's mild cerebro- vascular accident es ley Seni 6 a A 7 Maris PLS on” PME OT ~Decision ° GRNo, 239200 oF stroke is s compensable disease under Section 32-A of the 2000 POEA-SEC, as correctly found by the NLRC." However, the Court adheres to th findings ofboth the LA and the CCA that petitioners, despite knowing that respondent fas a high blood Pressure, gave the inter a clean bill of health, through the former's accredited clini, before deployment which leads to a conclusion that ‘Whatever illness respondent suffers on board the vessel is work-related It goes without saying, too, that respondent's work as a seafaer could have attributed to the development of his meningioma” In the words of the LA, “[w}hile om hoa the vessel, (respondent) is exposed fo extremes in temperature brought about by the harshness of s0@ travel and the elements ofthe sea and has mo choice of the food that ‘they eat because whatever are their provisions, the same shall be served ‘othem. Further, the Court adopts the CA's approval of Commissioner Nieves B. Vivar-de Castro's Dissenting Opinion, which reads: Moreover. the Complainant’ hypertension, while pre= sinting is mecely” one of the fctrs tht cased his stke Convery, “the nature and ‘conions of the Complaints employment also took put inthe resukig ilnss which hed sulered, These cde, sap stated bythe Labor Air gu, he Complainants exposure to extreme tetpeatres Drought aus bythe harshness of sen ireland the elements of these, the quali ad ‘ondton of the ood he ate, a Well the sin and ses ta he Dnt sufer brought shout by his dais and tsks on Bead ths ‘esse Otherwise sate, such hatte and conttons of work tthe very east inresed the rik of contacting the ins, ov agsavatd his recs nypertension that lest sso, an for which he should be compenssad therefor As cali mentioned tht the work contibuted ever to a small degice to fo the development or ‘aggravation of: disease fs enough to vara compensation. wx may no be amis oot at hij that othe lack of proper mee treatment alr hi reptraton, the Compas ‘medical conden waronad which imately ed to ¢ Ring of -Meningioma.a kind of bran tune which i fen described sow agowing x x x. To my mind. despite having boon discovered iagnosed sx (6; months ater he Complaina's eatin, the aidDesision o GaN. 239209 ios nevetsss manifested a the i instance when he sued & ssroke whilon bard the vensh x33” ‘Thus, the Court adheres to Commissioner Nieves E. VivarDe Castro in saying that petitioners having engaged the respondent. as hypersensitive as he is, they should now accept the liability for his ‘ensuing ailment in the course of his employment." {It is not required that an emptoyee must be in perfect health when ‘he contracted the iliness to be able to recover disability compensation.” Ieis equally tue, thot while the employer is not the insurer of the health ‘of the employees, once he takes the employees as he finds them, then he already assumes the risk of liability.” In sum, despite respondents pre-existing high blood pressure oF hypertension, he was still intially declared fit for sea euty during his PEME. Therefore, his meringiomo is presumed to have been brought aboot by the nature of his employment and occurred during and in the ‘course of his employment. This goes without saying that respondents ¢ntitted to total and permanent disability benefits because, as aply found by both the abor arbiter and the CA, he wold not be able to recume to his position as a fou th engineer o, at least, be hited by other maritime employers. Section 20(8 X6) ofthe POEA-SEC mandates the employer to pay the seafarer disabil'y benefits for his permanent total .or partial Aisability caused by the work-related illness or injury once’ there is already a finding of permanent either total or partial disability within the 120-day period or the 240-day period.” A permanent disability essentially means a permanent reduction of the eating power of & Seafarer to perform future sea or on beard duties and. permanent disability benefits serve as a means 1o alleviate the seafarers financial condition on account of the level of injury or illness he incurred or contracted." ching Sea pment ond Pra. nv: MLR 38 PS, 914 00,Decision 4" GRNo. 239209 ‘A reading of the three kinds of liabilities under Section 20(B) of the POEA-SEC mans that the POEA-SEC intended. to make. the employer liable for (1) the seafarer's sickness allowance equivalent to his basie wage in addition to the medical treatment that they: must provide the Seafarer with at theit cost; and (2) seafiree’s permanent total ‘or artil disability as finally determined by the company-designated physician ‘The Court retiocinated that while Section 20 of the POEA- SEC did not state on clear terms that the employer's liabilities are ‘cumulative in nature, which means so say thatthe employer is fable for the sickness allowance, medical expenses and disability benefits, it does not, however; state iat the compensation and benefits are alternative oF ‘thet the grant of one negates the grant af the others. This interpretation, in fat, is in accord with the constitutional policy that guarantees full protection to labor, both loeal and overseas. ‘Time and again, the Court is clear that the POEA-SEC is imbued ‘with public interest, Accordingly, its provisions must be construed furl, feasonably, and liberally in favor of the seafarer in the pursuit of his employment on board ogean-going vessels.” All told, the Court finds it proper the award to respondent of the following amounts, to. wit: (1)US$60,000.00 as permanent total lsability benefit (2)US82,800.00 as. sickness allowances" (3) 557,062.50 as medical expenses” and (4) USSI,000.00 as attorney's fees. Inaccordance with Nacar x Gallery Frames, the monetary awards shall eam a legal interest of 6% per annum computed {rom finality ofthe Decision in this case until full satisfaction thereof, Them 27013,2 GRNo. 9299 WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated November 27, 2017 and the Resolution dated May 10,2018 of the Court ‘of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No, 141153 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED, —— HENKIIEAN PaOL B. INTING “Assoclate Justice We CONCUR! ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE Senior Associate Justice Chairperson | PRUT L. HERNANDO rDGARbo 1. DELOS SANTOS Associate Justice Ral Associate Justice samanh SRIAN Associate Iustice ATTESTATION attest thatthe conclusions inthe above Deis in consultation before the ease was assigned of the Cours Divis"xn, 1 had heen reached to the waiter of the opinion ESTELAM. PRRLAS-BERNABE Senior Associate Justice ChairpersonDecision 8 GRNo. 239290 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Ariele VII oF the Consiuion and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, {ceri that the conclusions in the above Deckon ha sen eased in consultation hee the ase ws signe ois ‘writer ofthe opinion ofthe Court's Divisig. t \ DIOSDADO M. PERALTA, Chief ustice