Title
Bright Maritime Corp. vs. Racela
Case
G.R. No. 239390
Decision Date
Jun 3, 2019
A seafarer claimed disability benefits for aortic valve stenosis, alleging work-relatedness. The Supreme Court ruled against him, finding no substantial evidence linking his illness to his employment as a fitter, emphasizing the need for proof of work-relatedness under POEA-SEC.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 239390)

Applicable Law

The governing law applicable to the case is the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), which outlines the rights and obligations of seafarers and their employers concerning work-related injuries and illnesses.

Antecedents of the Case

Jerry J. Racela was hired on March 21, 2013, as a fitter on a vessel owned by Norbulk Shipping UK. His employment contract designated an eight-month duration and prescribed various salary and benefit terms. After undergoing a medical examination, Racela was cleared as "Fit for Sea Duty." In June 2013, he reported to work but began experiencing health problems in February 2014, leading to hospitalization and ultimately open-heart surgery for severe aortic regurgitation.

Upon his repatriation on April 19, 2014, Racela underwent further medical evaluations, which identified complications including aortic valve stenosis. Despite ongoing treatment, the company-designated physician concluded that his ailment was hereditary and not work-related, hence no disability rating was given.

Labor Arbiter's Ruling

In his April 19, 2016 decision, Labor Arbiter Thomas T. Que ruled in favor of Racela, granting him total and permanent disability benefits. The Arbiter argued that the ongoing medical treatment provided by the petitioners implied acknowledgment of an employer's liability, suggesting that Racela's condition was aggravated by work. The Arbiter concluded that Racela was entitled to benefits since his condition was unresolved and he was deemed totally disabled.

NLRC's Reversal

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) later reversed the Arbiter's ruling on September 28, 2016. The NLRC contended that there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal connection between Racela's heart disease and his employment. It noted that various risk factors for aortic valve stenosis were not related to work conditions but stemmed from hereditary or lifestyle factors. The NLRC deemed Racela's heart condition non-compensable under the existing POEA standards.

Court of Appeals' Decision

On February 15, 2018, the Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision, asserting that Racela's condition was indeed work-related. The CA based its reasoning on the absence of working symptoms prior to employment and the stresses associated with maritime work. It also criticized the lack of definitive assessments and found that the company-designated physician's failure to issue a clear disability rating indicated that Racela was entitled to the benefits claimed.

Petitioners' Arguments

In their appeal, petitioners argued that the CA incorrectly attributed Racela's condition to work-related factors without substantial evidence. They maintained that Racela could not prove that his duties had aggravated his heart condition and emphasized that the medical assessments corroborated non-work-related factors as the primary cause of Racela's ailments. The petitioners further highlighted procedural deficiencies concerning Racela's non-referral to a third physician for additional evaluation.

Respondent's Counterarguments

Racela contended that the CA's ruling was consistent with POEA guidelines, emphasizing that his medical issues surfaced during his employment. He argued that his employer’s failure to respond to his request for a referral and other procedural claims reinforced his position of being considered totally and permanently disabled under the law.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the petitioners, finding that the NLRC's assessment was more al

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.