G.R. No. 179537 - Philippine Economic Zone Authority vs. Edison Cogeneration Corp.

On 5 March 2010, Jebsens Maritime, Inc., acting on behalf of Aboitiz Jebsens Bulk Transport Corporation, hired Jessie D. Alcibar as an ordinary seaman for a nine-month period.
Prior to deployment, Alcibar underwent a comprehensive pre-employment medical examination and was declared physically fit for duty.
On 26 March 2010, Alcibar was deployed aboard the ocean-going vessel M/V Maritime Victory.

While on board, Alcibar raised concerns regarding the quality of meals: he alleged that most meals were high in fat and cholesterol.
He specifically claimed that the vessel’s cook prepared chilled meat directly without allowing it to defrost properly.
In February 2011, Alcibar began experiencing severe pain in his anal region and noticed blood in his stool.
Although he informed senior officers on board of his ill health, he contended that his reports were disregarded.
Despite his complaints, no medicine was administered by the vessel’s clinic, and Alcibar continued to perform his duties.

On 16 March 2011, while docked in New Westminster, Canada, Alcibar was examined at a medical clinic where he was diagnosed with an internal hemorrhoid.
Despite the diagnosis, Alcibar resumed his duties as an ordinary seaman.
Following a deterioration in his condition, he requested repatriation to the Philippines; however, he was informed that his return could only occur once a replacement was available.
Alcibar was repatriated on 5 April 2011.
Upon arrival in Manila, he promptly reported his deteriorating health to his employers, only to be told that a post-employment medical examination would be scheduled once approved by management.

Alcibar notified petitioners of his need to return to his province to attend his mother’s interment.
While in Camiguin, his health further declined, and he did not receive any follow-up communication from his employers regarding his medical evaluation.
On 7 May 2011, Alcibar voluntarily sought examination at the Associated Marine Officers and Seamen’s Union (AMOSUP) Seamen’s Hospital in Cebu.
A private doctor diagnosed him with rectal (colon) cancer.
On 26 May 2011, Alcibar underwent a Laparoscopic Abdomino-percenal Resection and was confined in hospital from 24 May to 10 June 2011.

On 8 September 2011, Alcibar filed a complaint for permanent disability compensation, sickness allowance, damages, and attorney’s fees.
He asserted that the onboard dietary provisions directly increased his risk of contracting colon cancer.
The Labor Arbiter, in a decision dated 15 May 2012, ruled in favor of Alcibar, finding his illness compensable based on the presumed work-connection.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in its decision dated 28 December 2012, reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling on the grounds that colon cancer was not work-related and that Alcibar failed to comply with a mandatory three-day post-employment medical examination requirement.
Consequently, Alcibar’s claim was dismissed by the NLRC.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in a decision dated 26 May 2015, reversed the NLRC by reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

The CA held that evidence showed the vessel’s poor dietary provisions substantially contributed to the risk of contracting colon cancer.
It further found that Alcibar substantially complied with the post-employment medical examination requirement despite the petitioners’ failure to schedule the said examination.

The CA’s decision was upheld upon a subsequent motion for reconsideration on 13 October 2015.
Ultimately, Alcibar’s petition for review on certiorari was brought before the Supreme Court.

Whether Alcibar’s colon cancer can be deemed a compensable work-related illness under the applicable statutory and contractual provisions.

The core issue centers on establishing whether the poor dietary provisions provided aboard the vessel contributed to or aggravated the risk of colon cancer.
The issue also encompasses whether Alcibar’s compliance with the post-employment medical examination requirement was substantially met, given the petitioners’ failure to schedule the examination.

Whether the waiver of the post-employment medical examination requirement by petitioners—by not arranging the examination—affects the entitlement of disability benefits.

The debate includes whether the absence of timely medical examination can be excused on the basis that any non-compliance was attributable to petitioners’ negligence.
The determination of whether such negligence nullifies the defense against the claim for compensable injury.