Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

Tenth (10th) Division

ARTHUR H. AQUINO, CA-G.R. SP No. 162087
Petitioner,
Members:

- versus - DIAMANTE, F. N., Chairperson,

LEGASPI, G. F. D., and
*
ALIÑO-GELUZ, E. R., JJ.
C.F. SHARP CREW
MANAGEMENT, INC. and/or Promulgated:
NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE,
LTD., 26 FEBRUARY 2021
Respondents.

DECISION
LEGASPI, G. F. D., J.:

This petition for review1 filed under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court
assails the 10 May 2019 Decision2 and the 12 July 2019 Resolution3 of the
Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators of the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board in MVA-046-RCMB-NCR-290-03-09-2018.

Factual Antecedents

On September 24, 2015, petitioner Arthur H. Aquino, a Filipino

seafarer, signed an 8-month contract of employment4 with respondent
Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., through its manning agent in the Philippines,
respondent C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. Petitioner worked on board
the vessel “M/S Norwegian Gem” as a stateroom steward with a basic
monthly salary of US$1,123.00. Petitioner is likewise covered by the NSU
Collective Bargaining Agreement (NSU CBA). Prior to his engagement,
petitioner underwent a series of tests and was declared fit to work.

On April 7, 2016, during petitioner's engagement in the vessel, he

suddenly experienced abdominal pains and had blood-streaked stool. On
* Acting Third Member per Office Order No. 59-21-RSF dated February 22, 2021.
1 Rollo, pp. 8-42.
2 Rollo, pp. 47-53; Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators: AVA Chairman Pablito M. Rojas, AVA Member
Rosario C. Cruz and AVA Member Walfredo D. Villazor.
3 Rollo, pp. 54-55.
4 Rollo, p. 97.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 95705 Page of
CA-G.R.
Decision
SP No. 162087 Page 2 of 6
Decision

April 21, 2016, petitioner was brought to a shoreside physician upon the
vessel's arrival in New York, U.S.A. There, Dr. Anthony Ng diagnosed
petitioner with colitis and was prescribed medications. Petitioner was also
advised to rejoin the vessel and to have a two-day rest.5

On May 24, 2016, petitioner again suffered abdominal pains and had
blood-streaked stool. On May 25, 2016, the vessel arrived in Nassau,
Bahamas where petitioner was disembarked and was sent to the Kelso
Medical Clinic. Petitioner was attended to by Dr. Harold Munings. After
undergoing several medical tests/procedures, petitioner was found to have
ulcerative colitis and was advised to continue the intake of the prescribed
medications.6

Subsequently, petitioner was repatriated and he arrived in the

Philippines on May 31, 2016. Petitioner was referred to the company-
designated physician who confirmed that he is suffering from ulcerative
colitis. Petitioner underwent several consultations, medical tests/procedures
and treatment.7 On September 20, 2016, the company-designated physician
issued a final medical report8 stating that petitioner is maximally medically
improved and fit for duty as per POEA Contract.

Petitioner consulted with his personal physician, Dr. Felix T. Terencio,

who issued a medical report9 dated November 8, 2018 stating that petitioner
is no longer fit to perform his job as a seafarer. Because of respondents'
failure to pay the benefits due him, petitioner was constrained to file a
complaint for total permanent disability benefits under the NSU CBA,
sickness allowance, actual and exemplary damages and attorney's fees
against respondents.10

On May 10, 2019, the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators rendered the

assailed Decision dismissing petitioner's complaint for lack of merit/basis. 11
According to the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, petitioner failed to present
substantial evidence that his illness, ulcerative colitis, was work-related.
Petitioner simply advanced several discussions on the nature of his illness
and its prognosis but did not explain in detail how his working condition
may have caused or even increased the risk of contracting it. Even the
medical report of petitioner's personal physician, Dr. Terencio, merely
focused on the academic description of the illness without any work-relation
assessment. There was no indication that any treatment, test or procedure
5 Rollo, pp. 124-125.
6 Rollo, pp. 126-132.
7 Rollo, pp. 171-180.
8 Rollo, pp. 181-183.
9 Rollo, pp. 133-134.
10 See Complainant's Position Paper, Rollo, pp. 79-96; Respondent's Position Paper, Rollo, pp. 135-167.
11 Rollo, p. 53.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 95705 Page of
CA-G.R.
Decision
SP No. 162087 Page 3 of 6
Decision

was performed on petitioner to support Dr. Terencio's medical diagnosis that

petitioner is no longer fit to perform his job as a seafarer. In fact, Dr.
Terencio's finding was done only after a single consultation. On the other
hand, the company-designated physician's finding that petitioner's illness is
not work-related but an autoimmune disease and that he is fit for duty was
arrived at after several consultations, medical tests/procedures and treatment.

Moreover, the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators ruled that the company-

designated physician's finding prevails because of petitioner's failure to
comply with the mandatory procedure of referral to a third doctor. The Panel
of Voluntary Arbitrators observed that petitioner insisted that such referral is
merely an option and that he also failed to provide respondents a copy of the
medical report of his personal physician despite requests.

The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators further denied petitioner's claim

for attorney's fees and damages because of his failure to show any bad faith
or malice on the part of respondents in denying his claim for total permanent
disability benefits.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration 12 which the Panel of

Voluntary Arbitrators denied for lack of merit in its assailed 12 July 2019
Resolution.

Grounds

Hence, petitioner filed the instant petition raising the following

grounds:

“THE PANEL OF VOLUNTARY ARBITRATORS, WITH ALL DUE

RESPECT, ERRED WHEN ITDISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THE
FOLLOWING GROUNDS:

1. WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONERIS THEREFORE NOT

ENTITLED TO TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY
BENEFITS AS HIS ILLNESS IS NOT WORK-RELATED;

2. WHEN IT RULED AND RELIED HEAVILY ON THE COMPANY

PHYSICIAN AND TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE OPINION
OF PETITIONER'S DOCTOR OF CHOICE;

3. WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO REFER AND

COMPLY WITH THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION RULE UNDER
THE POEA-SEC; AND

4. WHEN IT FAILED TO GRANT DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S

12 Rollo, pp. 56-70.

CA-G.R. CV NO. 95705 Page of
CA-G.R.
Decision
SP No. 162087 Page 4 of 6
Decision

FEES.”13

Our Ruling

The petition is unmeritorious.

Settled is the rule that whoever claims entitlement to benefits provided

by law should establish his right thereto by substantial evidence which is
more than a mere scintilla; it is real and substantial, and not merely
apparent.14 Awards of compensation and disability benefits cannot rest on
speculations, presumptions and conjectures.15 It is incumbent upon the
seafarer or the claimant to show, through substantial evidence, proof that his
condition was aggravated by his work and not just merely rely on the
presumption that his illness is work-related. While the law recognizes that an
illness may be disputably presumed to be work-related, the seafarer or the
claimant must still show a reasonable connection between the nature of work
on board the vessel and the illness contracted or aggravated. Thus, the
burden is placed upon the claimant to present substantial evidence that his
work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the
disease.16

In the instant case, We concur with the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators'

finding that petitioner failed to present substantial evidence that his illness,
ulcerative colitis, was work-related. The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators
keenly observed that petitioner simply advanced several discussions on the
nature of his illness and its prognosis but did not explain in detail how his
working condition caused or increased the risk of contracting it. In other
words, petitioner failed to show how the nature of his work as a stateroom
steward contributed to the development or aggravation of ulcerative colitis.

The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators also correctly found that the

medical report of petitioner's personal physician, Dr. Terencio, merely
focused on the academic description of the illness without any work-relation
assessment. There was no indication that any treatment, test or procedure
was performed on petitioner to support Dr. Terencio's medical diagnosis that
petitioner is no longer fit to perform his job as a seafarer.

It is well to remember that while the POEA-SEC is liberally construed

in favor of the seafarer, courts cannot allow claims for compensation based
on surmises. Liberal construction is not a license to disregard the evidence
on record or to misapply our laws.17
13 Rollo, p. 18.
14 Ventis Maritime Corporation, et al. vs. Salenga, G.R. No. 238578, June 8, 2020.
15 Loadstar International Shipping, Inc. vs. Yamson, G.R. No. 228470, April 23, 2018.
16 Pacio vs. DOHLE-Philman Manning Agency, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 225847, July 3, 2019.
17 Bright Maritime Corporation and/or Norbulk Shipping UK Limited vs. Racela, G.R. No. 239390, June
CA-G.R. CV NO. 95705 Page of
CA-G.R.
Decision
SP No. 162087 Page 5 of 6
Decision

We likewise uphold the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators' reliance on the

medical findings of the company-designated physician that petitioner's
illness is not work-related but an autoimmune disease and that he is fit for
duty. It is noteworthy that the company-designated physician's findings was
arrived at after several consultations, medical tests/procedures and treatment
while petitioner's personal physician's finding that he is unfit for sea-duty
was done only after a single consultation. In Ranoa vs. Anglo-Eastern Crew
Management Philippines, Inc., et al.18, the Supreme Court held that as
between the company designated-physicians who have all the medical
records of petitioner for the duration of his treatment and the latter's chosen
physician who merely examined him for a day as an outpatient, the former's
finding must prevail.

In addition, as properly found by the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators,

petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory procedure of referral to a
third doctor. Here, after the company-designated physician issued a final
medical report stating that petitioner is maximally medically improved and
fit for duty as per POEA Contract, petitioner consulted his personal
physician who opined that he was no longer fit to perform his job as a
seafarer. Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint against respondents without
first expressly requesting the company for the referral of the matter to a third
doctor. Securing a third doctor's opinion is the duty of the seafarer, who must
actively or expressly request for it.19 Contrary to the position of petitioner,
the referral to a third doctor is a mandatory procedure and the failure to
abide thereby is a breach of the POEA-SEC which has the effect of
consolidating the finding of the company-designated physician as final and
binding.20

Lastly, We agree with the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators' denial of

petitioner's claim for attorney's fees and damages because of his failure to
show any bad faith or malice on the part of respondents in denying his claim
for total permanent disability benefits.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review is

DENIED. The assailed 10 May 2019 Decision and the 12 July 2019
Resolution of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators of the National Conciliation
and Mediation Board in MVA-046-RCMB-NCR-290-03-09-2018 are
AFFIRMED.

3, 2019.
18 G.R. No. 225756, November 28, 2019.
19 Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and/or Castillo vs. Buico, G.R. No. 230901, December 5, 2019.
20 Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc. and/or Herning Shipping Asia Pte. Ltd. vs. Roderos, G.R. No.
230473, April 23, 2018.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 95705 Page of
CA-G.R.
Decision
SP No. 162087 Page 6 of 6
Decision

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
GERMANO FRANCISCO D. LEGASPI
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
FRANCHITO N. DIAMANTE
Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
EMILY R. ALIÑO-GELUZ
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
FRANCHITO N. DIAMANTE
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Tenth Division