Facts:

The case titled Alcid C. Balbarino (now deceased), substituted by his surviving siblings Albert, Analiza, and Allan Balbarino v. Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. and Worldwide Crew, Inc., with the G.R. No. 201580, was deliberated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on September 21, 2020. The events unfolded primarily in connection to the employment of Alcid Balbarino, who was re-hired as an able seaman aboard the vessel M/V Coral Nettuno by Worldwide Crew, Inc. through its local manning agent, Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. This employment commenced on August 26, 2008, under a ten-month contract with a monthly salary of US$563.

Alcid was declared fit for duty on October 1, 2008, and began his service on board the vessel. However, in January 2009, he discovered a tumor on his right thigh and swelling on his forehead. This led to medical examinations in Belgium where he was diagnosed with alveolar soft part sarcoma, which later revealed multiple metastases affecting his lungs, skull,

...

Facts:

Employment and Contractual Background

• Alcid C. Balbarino, an experienced able seaman, was re-hired on August 26, 2008 by Worldwide Crew, Inc. through its local manning agent, Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc.
• This engagement marked his fifth contract with the respondents, with a nine‐month term and a monthly salary of US$563.00, under a POEA-approved employment contract that was superseded by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between AMOSUP and Worldwide.

Deployment and Early Medical Developments

• After being declared fit (October 1, 2008) by a company-designated physician, Alcid was deployed aboard the chemical/gas tanker M/V Coral Nettuno.
• On January 11, 2009, he noted health issues including a mass on his right thigh and swelling on his forehead, prompting referral to a hospital in AZ Klina where removal of the tumor was recommended but postponed due to the vessel’s departure.

Medical Interventions, Diagnosis, and Subsequent Treatment

• On February 2, 2009, while abroad, a team of doctors in Belgium performed surgery to remove the tumor and conducted a CT scan that revealed a skull bone defect; further examinations uncovered multiple lung metastases as well as a suspected primary tumor in the leg.
• Comprehensive biopsies led to a diagnosis of alveolar soft part sarcoma. Alcid underwent further treatments and examinations throughout March 2009, and on April 14, 2009, he was repatriated and admitted to St. Luke’s Hospital for additional laboratory tests and CT scans, which confirmed pulmonary nodules and bone metastases.

Medical Reports and Conflicting Opinions on Causation

• On April 27, 2009, the company-designated physician, Dr. Natalia G. Alegre II, issued a report confirming the diagnosis but attributed the cause to a genetic chromosomal abnormality, thereby negating work-related causation.
• In contrast, an independent oncologist, Dr. Jhade Lotus Peneyra, and other consulting physicians later opined that exposure to certain chemicals in Alcid’s work environment could have increased the risk or aggravated his condition, asserting a potential causal link.

Dispute for Compensation and Arbitration Proceedings

• Alcid sought disability benefits, sickness allowance, reimbursement of medical expenses, and attorney’s fees through a grievance initiated under the CBA; after unsuccessful mandatory conferences, he filed a Notice to Arbitrate before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB).
• On October 8, 2010, the NCMB awarded Alcid benefits based on a disputable presumption that his sarcoma was work-related due to continuous exposure to hazardous chemicals and strenuous work conditions, excusing him from proving direct causation.

Appeal and Court of Appeals (CA) Decision

• Respondents contested the NCMB award, and on September 22, 2011, the CA reversed the decision by holding that Alcid’s illness was not work-related under the POEA-SEC and CBA, emphasizing that the medical evidence favored the company-designated physician’s opinion.
• The CA noted procedural deficiencies on Alcid’s part regarding the third physician requirement and critically interpreted Article 26.1 of the CBA, limiting disability benefits to injuries resulting from accidents.

Petition for Review on Certiorari

• Petitioners, acting on behalf of the late Alcid and his surviving siblings, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, arguing that Alcid’s long-term exposure to carcinogenic chemicals and harsh working conditions established a reasonable nexus to his illness.
• They contended that (a) the CA erred by overvaluing the company-designated physician’s opinion, (b) the disputed presumption under the POEA-SEC remains viable, and (c) even if the CBA did not apply, Alcid was still entitled to full disability benefits of US$60,000.00 under the POEA-SEC, along with appropriate allowances and reimbursement.

Issue:

Entitlement to Various Benefits

• Whether Alcid is entitled to disability benefits under the CBA and/or the POEA-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).
• Whether Alcid is entitled to a sickness allowance and reimbursement of medical expenses following his repatriation.

Work-Relatedness of the Illness

• Whether there exists a reasonable nexus between Alcid’s exposure to hazardous chemicals and adverse working conditions and the development (or aggravation) of alveolar soft part sarcoma.
• Whether the disputed presumption under the POEA-SEC applies, given that the illness is not enumerated among the occupational diseases but is presumed work-related unless proven otherwise.

Procedural and Evidentiary Considerations

• The adequacy and weight to be given to the medical opinions of the company-designated physician versus those of the seafarer-appointed physicians.
• Whether Alcid’s failure to invoke a third physician opinion should negatively affect his claim regarding the causation of his illness.

Computation and Quantum of Benefits

• How to reconcile the differences between the amounts awarded by the NCMB versus what is mandated by the POEA-SEC and the CBA.
• The proper deduction of money already paid (e.g., part of the sickness allowance) in final computation of the benefits due.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)