Case Digest (G.R. No. 191606)
Facts:
Damaso R. Casomo v. Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. and/or Columbia Shipmanagement, Ltd., G.R. No. 191606, August 01, 2012, the Supreme Court Second Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Damaso R. Casomo was hired under a POEA‑approved contract dated October 7, 2005 by Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. for and on behalf of foreign principal Columbia Shipmanagement, Ltd., as an Able Seaman for nine months at a basic monthly salary of US$495.00. He passed a pre‑employment medical examination (PEME) and departed the Philippines on November 17, 2005. In January 2006 he felt a lump on his right face; on March 21, 2006, while the vessel was in Nagoya, Japan, he was examined and recommended for disembarkation and repatriation. Company physician Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz in Manila ordered tests and diagnosed ameloblastoma (a jaw tumor/impacted wisdom tooth) and Casomo underwent right hemimandibulectomy with mandibular reconstruction at Medical Center Manila.
Casomo claimed permanent total disability benefits, reimbursement of medical expenses, damages and attorney’s fees from Career Shipmanagement, which denied liability on the ground that Dr. Cruz declared the illness not work‑related. Before the Labor Arbiter, Casomo failed to establish a causal link between his duties as Able Seaman and his ameloblastoma; the Labor Arbiter (Napoleon M. Menese) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and awarded US$60,000 in permanent disability benefits, reasoning that Casomo contracted the illness during his term of employment and that illnesses not listed in Section 32 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract are “disputably presumed” work‑related under Section 20(B)(4), thus placing on the employer the burden to prove otherwise. Career Shipmanagement sought relief in the Court of Appeals via certiorari; the CA (CA‑G.R. SP No. 102925) found grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC ruling, held that Casomo failed to prove work‑relatedness or causal connection between his duties and the ameloblastoma, and granted the petition.
Casomo filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, challe...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the NLRC and denying petitioner Casomo permanent disability benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract?
- Does the company‑designated physician’s certification that an illness is “not work‑related” conclusively bar a seafarer’s claim for compensation, or did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion by ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)