Title
Bacabac vs. NYK-Fil Shipmanagement, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 228550
Decision Date
Jul 28, 2021
Seafarer Joemar Bacabac, diagnosed with Severe Acute Cholangitis during employment, was awarded disability benefits as the illness was presumed work-related due to inadequate rebuttal by the employer.
seafarer
disability benefits
sickness allowance
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 226272)

Factual Background

Petitioner was hired as an oiler and embarked on a nine-month contract aboard MV IKI. While performing engine-room duties on March 11, 2012, he felt dizzy and experienced abdominal pain, persisting despite onboard medication and loss of appetite. Upon arrival at a Chilean port he vomited blood, received clinic treatment, and was transferred to Clinica Sanatorio Aleman where renal dysfunction was found and dialysis was performed thrice. He also underwent surgery for removal of stones in the bile duct and was confined from March 15, 2012 to May 19, 2012. He was repatriated on May 21, 2012 and treated in Manila where he underwent duodenostomy and endoscopy. On May 23, 2012 a company-designated physician diagnosed Severe Acute Cholangitis and declared the condition not work-related. Respondents paid the treatment costs.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed a complaint on September 24, 2012 for total and permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, reimbursement of medical and hospital expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees before the Labor Arbiter. On April 15, 2013 the Labor Arbiter granted permanent total disability benefits and sickness allowance totaling US$62,256 plus ten percent attorney’s fees, and dismissed other claims. Respondents appealed to the NLRC which, on November 29, 2013, reversed and dismissed the complaint. The CA, on April 27, 2016, denied petitioner’s certiorari petition and affirmed the NLRC. Petitioner sought reconsideration and then filed the present Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

The central legal issue concerned whether petitioner’s illness, which manifested during the term of his employment contract, was work-related such that he was entitled to disability benefits and sickness allowance under the POEA-SEC, and whether the company-designated physician’s report was adequate to rebut the disputable presumption of work-relatedness.

The Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner maintained that his illness manifested during the contract period and was therefore disputably presumed work-related under Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC, entitling him to permanent total disability benefits and sickness allowance. Respondents relied principally on the company-designated physician’s opinion that the illness was not work-related and on the absence of evidence showing a causal nexus between petitioner’s duties as an oiler and his medical condition.

Ruling of the Court

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modification. The Court held that petitioner was entitled to permanent total disability benefits in the amount of US$60,000, sickness allowance in the amount of US$2,256, attorney’s fees equal to ten percent of the total monetary award, and that the total award shall earn interest at six percent per annum from finality until fully paid.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court applied the framework in Ventis Maritime Corporation v. Salenga regarding illnesses that manifest during the term of a seafarer’s contract. The Court observed that when an illness manifests while the seafarer is employed, paragraph four of Section 20(A) creates a disputable presumption of work-relatedness for illnesses not listed in Section 32. This presumption shifts the burden to the employer to prove that the illness was not work-related. The Court found that petitioner’s illness manifested during his contract and therefore the disputable presumption arose. The Court held that the company-designated physician’s report was inadequate to overcome the presumption because it merely stated the diagnosis of Severe Acute Cholangitis and a conclusion that the illness was not work-related without explaining the medical basis for that conclusion. The Court stressed that a company physician’s evaluation must be complete and definite, explaining the medical findings and how they support the conclusion on causation and fitness for sea duty. The report here lacked such justification, was issued only two days after repatriation while petitioner remained hospitalized for a month thereafter, and contained no supporting documents or explanation tying the illness to non-occupational causes. The Court therefore disregarded the company physician’s assessment as incomplete and doubtful, invoking precedents that permit striking down an improvident medical report. Because the employer failed to rebut the disputable presumption, the Court deemed petitioner totally and permanently disabled as of the expiration of the one hundred twenty-day period counted from repatriation. The Court further held that petitioner properly filed his complaint after that period and that he was not required to obtain an opinion from his own physician where the company physician’s assessment was invalid.

Application to Sickness Allowance, Medical Expenses, and Attorney’s Fees

The Court ruled that petitioner was entitled to sickness allowance for the relevant period up to one hundred twenty days because he suffered illness during the contract and no valid company certification negated his entitlement. The Labor Arbiter therefore correctly awarded sickness allowance in the absence of proof of payment. The Court af

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms