A.M. No. 14061-Ret - Re: Application for Retirement of Macarambon

Victorio B. De Jesus was hired by petitioner OSG Shipmanagement Manila, Inc. on behalf of Michaelmar Shipping Services, Inc. as a cook aboard the vessel M/T OVERSEAS ANDROMAR effective January 15, 2008.
His contract was for an eight‐month period, and prior to boarding on February 20, 2008, he underwent a medical examination and was declared “fit to work.”

Shortly after boarding, respondent observed that the drinking water aboard was salty and dirty, which he alleged led to physical discomfort.
During the voyage, he experienced sudden body pains and nausea. At a port of call in Rotterdam, Netherlands, a doctor diagnosed him with Costen Syndrome.
Later, following continued symptoms during the voyage, further consultations in Singapore and China yielded diagnoses of urethritis and kidney stones.
The deterioration of his condition prompted a nephrectomy (surgical removal of one kidney) after his repatriation to the Philippines on November 14, 2008.

Upon arrival in the Philippines, respondent sought medical attention; however, petitioners contended that he was repatriated due to the completion of his employment contract—not because of a medical emergency.
Petitioners further alleged that respondent did not report for a post-employment medical examination by the company-designated physician, citing his failure to produce a master’s medical pass, as required under the applicable rules.
Despite these contentions, respondent claimed that his continued health deterioration justified immediate treatment from his personal doctor, eventually leading to a declaration of permanent unfitness for sea duty by Intellicare Makati Clinic on August 26, 2009.

Relying on his deteriorating health condition, respondent filed a complaint for full disability compensation against the petitioners before the Labor Arbiter.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint, reasoning that his repatriation was due to a finished contract and that he failed to prove a work-related causation of his illness.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the dismissal, noting that there was no evidence his illnesses were work-related or that they occurred during the term of his employment.

Dissatisfied with the NLRC ruling, respondent sought certiorari through an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
The CA reversed the NLRC decision, ruling in respondent’s favor by awarding total and permanent disability benefits, reimbursement, and attorney’s fees.
The CA based its decision on the presumption that while respondent’s illness (kidney stones and urethritis) was not among the list of occupational diseases in Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, such conditions were nonetheless presumed to be work-related unless the burden of proof was met by petitioners.
Petitioners then filed a petition for review under Rule 45, raising issues regarding the factual findings and legal bases underlying the award of disability benefits.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error of law in awarding total and permanent disability benefits to respondent despite:

The completion of his employment contract; and
His failure to undergo a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within the prescribed three-day period upon his repatriation.

Whether the CA erred in awarding such benefits given the overwhelming evidence presented by petitioners that:

The illnesses suffered by respondent did not render him permanently or totally disabled; and
His loss of one kidney is classified as Grade 7 under the POEA Contract, which does not substantiate entitlement to full benefits.

Whether the CA improperly awarded attorney’s fees to the private respondent despite petitioners’ contention that the disability benefits should have been denied due to respondent having finished his contract and failing to comply with mandatory reporting requirements.