Facts:
Respondent
Manuel M. Cunanan was hired in October 2009 by petitioner
CF Sharp Crew Management Inc., for and on behalf of its foreign principal
Norwegian Cruise Lines Inc., as an
assistant carpenter under an employment contract for ten months. He was deployed on
November 20, 2009, initially boarding
M/S Norwegian Spirit and later being transferred to
M/S Norwegian Dawn on
January 24, 2010. On
February 16, 2010, while working on board, respondent consulted the ship physician, who noted elevated blood sugar and hypertension; on repeat examination on the next day, his blood sugar remained elevated, and he was advised to seek medical consultation upon return to his home country. On
February 23, 2010, respondent was medically repatriated, and on
February 24, 2010, he was referred to the company-designated clinic, whose
Medical Report dated March 9, 2010 recorded a working impression of
hypertension (stage I, uncontrolled) and
diabetes mellitus type 2 (uncontrolled). After examinations and consultations, the clinic, through its Medical Coordinator, issued a
Final Medical Progress Report dated August 24, 2010, which declared the working impressions of hypertension (stage I) and diabetes mellitus type 2 as
controlled, supported by detailed physical examinations and laboratory findings, and stated that specialists opined respondent was
fit to resume sea duties; respondent then signed a
Certificate of Fitness for Work. Petitioners paid respondent’s medical expenses and sickness allowances during treatment. While still under the care of company doctors, respondent consulted private physicians beginning
July 27, 2010; on
September 29, 2010, Dr. Camero issued a medical certificate diagnosing hypertension stage II and diabetes mellitus and declaring respondent permanently unfit for sea duties, with references to disability grading and work-relatedness, while on
February 18, 2011 Dr. Eduardo Yu certified that respondent was permanently unfit for sea duties in any capacity and also cited disability grade 1 and asserted work-relatedness. Respondent was also informed by Norwegian Cruise on
October 12, 2010 that he could no longer be offered re-employment. Respondent then filed a complaint before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for disability compensation, damages, and attorney’s fees. He claimed that his illnesses were triggered by a work accident on
February 16, 2010 while lifting wooden pallets, allegedly causing chest and abdominal impacts and ensuing pains and symptoms, which ultimately led to diagnoses of hypertension and diabetes; he further alleged that the nature of his work and exposure to hazardous fumes aggravated his condition, and argued that he was permanently and totally disabled because he was unable to perform his customary job for more than 120 days. Petitioners denied work-relatedness, contended that hypertension and diabetes were not compensable under the
2000 POEA-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) requirements, argued that diabetes is not an occupational disease under the POEA-SEC and had been held by jurisprudence as non-work related, and asserted that even assuming work-relatedness, respondent was not entitled to total and permanent disability because company-designated physicians had declared him fit for work. On
July 8, 2011, the
Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The
NLRC reversed, awarding permanent total disability benefits and attorney’s fees. Petitioners moved for reconsideration but were denied. Petitioners then filed a
Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the
Court of Appeals (CA). On
November 23, 2012, the CA dismissed the petition on procedural grounds related to the attachments and proof of service, and on
November 18, 2013 denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration due to continued failure to attach certified true copies of the NLRC resolutions. Petitioners subsequently filed a
Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court challenging the CA resolutions and raising both procedural and substantive issues.
Issues:
Whether respondent’s claim for disability compensation should be granted despite the CA’s procedural dismissal, and whether the evidence established entitlement to
permanent and total disability benefits and
attorney’s fees under the POEA-SEC and applicable Philippine law.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: