Title
BW Shipping Philippines, Inc. vs. Ong
Case
G.R. No. 202177
Decision Date
Nov 17, 2021
Seafarer claimed work-related diabetes, hypertension; SC denied permanent disability benefits, citing lack of proof, procedural lapses, and upheld company physician's fitness assessment.
seafarer
permanent disability benefits
diabetes

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202177)

Factual Background

Respondent was first hired by petitioner in January 1999. After that initial employment, respondent was rehired and promoted by petitioner several times, culminating in his March 19, 2008 engagement as Chief Steward and Chief Cook on board BW Hemina. This engagement covered a period of nine months, with a basic monthly salary of USD1,127.00. Before embarkation, respondent underwent the required physical and physiological evaluation by company-designated physicians and was declared “fit for sea duty (without restriction).” He boarded on March 29, 2008.

Respondent’s duties required him to manage and monitor food supplies aboard the vessel, ensure their sufficiency for the duration of the voyage, supervise crew meals, carry supplies, and supervise his subordinates’ work. He also prepared reports and requests for vessel provisions sent to port authorities and to the principal company.

On June 8, 2008, respondent complained of dizziness, nausea, recurring headache, body itchiness, frequent urination, and shortness of breath. He was examined on June 17, 2008 by a doctor in Tampa, Florida, where he was diagnosed with “uncontrolled diabetes and uncontrolled hypertension.” Respondent was repatriated on June 20, 2008 and referred to company-designated physicians, who conducted tests and advised medication and treatment.

On October 2, 2008, company-designated physicians declared respondent “fit to resume sea duties.” Respondent, however, continued to feel that his condition had not improved. He then sought the opinion of Dr. Antonio C. Pascual, a cardiologist. In a Medical Certificate dated January 12, 2009, Dr. Pascual found respondent suffering from “Essential Hypertension, Stage 2 and Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2,” and noted no prior history of those illnesses.

Respondent requested petitioner’s assistance for medication costs, but petitioner refused. Respondent then filed a complaint before the LA for permanent disability benefits, medical reimbursement, damages, and attorney’s fees.

Labor Arbiter Proceedings

On June 19, 2009, LA Enrique L. Flores rendered a Decision granting respondent’s complaint in part. The LA ordered petitioners, jointly and severally, to pay respondent permanent total disability benefits of USD90,000.00 in Philippine currency at the prevailing rate at the time of payment, plus attorney’s fees of ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award. It denied all other claims.

The LA reasoned that compensability required only that the seafarer’s illness occur during the term of the employment contract. Since respondent allegedly could not return to customary work for more than 241 days from repatriation, the LA concluded that respondent qualified for permanent total disability benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

NLRC Review

Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, which, in its Decision dated October 27, 2009, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the LA Decision. The NLRC held that compensability depended not only on the timing of the illness during the effectivity of the employment contract, but also on whether the illness was work-connected. Despite this correction of the LA’s legal framing, the NLRC refused to disturb the LA’s ultimate conclusion because it found that the statutory conditions for compensability were met.

Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution dated December 22, 2009.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion in the grant of disability benefits and related monetary awards. On March 9, 2012, the CA denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC. The CA held that although respondent had been declared fit to resume sea duty by company-designated physicians, this did not negate entitlement to permanent total disability benefits because respondent was shown to have been unable to work since repatriation on June 20, 2008, and because he remained under medication even after being found fit. The CA also concluded that respondent had proven the work-related nature of the illnesses.

In a Resolution dated June 4, 2012, the CA denied reconsideration.

Issues Raised on Review

In the petition before the Court, petitioners attributed error to the CA for affirming the labor tribunals’ finding that respondent was entitled to permanent total disability benefits. The controversy, as framed, involved whether respondent satisfied the requirements for disability benefits under the governing POEA-SEC and whether the tribunals committed grave abuse of discretion in granting compensability.

The Court’s Review Standard and Scope

The Court recognized that in labor cases, it limits its review to the legal correctness of the CA Decision within the context of the certiorari petition before the CA. Accordingly, the Court determined whether the CA correctly found the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC ruling, and not whether the labor tribunals’ merits determination was correct in an unrestrained sense. The Court reiterated that grave abuse of discretion exists when the tribunal’s findings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence.

Governing Rules on Seafarer’s Disability Compensation

The Court held that entitlement of an overseas seafarer to disability benefits is governed not only by medical findings but also by the law and contract, notably the employment contract and the POEA-SEC treated as incorporated therein. The Court required respondent to prove two conditions under Section 20(B), paragraph 6 of the 2000 POEA-SEC: first, the illness must be work-related; and second, the illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract.

Diabetes Mellitus: Not Automatically Compensable

The Court ruled that diabetes mellitus is not an occupational disease under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC. It explained that diabetes is a complex condition with gradations, and that mere suffering from the illness does not automatically justify an award of permanent total disability benefits. The severity and work connection must be adequately proven.

The Court cited its reasoning in Rillera v. United Philippine Lines, Inc., stating that diabetes is ordinarily acquired through inheritance, with only remote causal links to environmental and occupational factors. It emphasized that diabetes mellitus is a metabolic and familial disease pre-disposed by heredity, obesity, or old age, and that it does not indicate work-relatedness in the sense required for disability benefits. The Court thus found no sufficient evidentiary basis to treat respondent’s diabetes as compensable.

Essential Hypertension: Compensability Requires Gravity and Substantial Proof

As to essential hypertension, the Court acknowledged that it is a recognized occupational disease under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC. However, the Court stressed that work-relatedness alone was not enough. The POEA-SEC requires that hypertension be of such nature as to indicate impairment of body organs such as the kidneys, heart, eyes, and brain, resulting in permanent disability.

Accordingly, the Court required evidence that is real and substantial, not merely apparent. It found respondent’s allegations inadequate to show how his work responsibilities led to the acquisition of diabetes and hypertension, including the required correlation between his duties and the nature of the illnesses. It likewise found that respondent failed to substantiate that hypertension was sufficiently grave to render him permanently and totally disabled from performing seafaring work.

Weight of the Company-Designated Physicians’ Findings

The Court placed decisive weight on the treatment timeline and the company-designated physicians’ assessment. After repatriation on June 20, 2008, respondent was immediately attended by company-designated physicians. For months, respondent underwent tests and was provided medication and treatment, with documented records submitted and not meaningfully disputed. On October 2, 2008, which the Court counted as 104 days from repatriation, company-designated physicians issued a certification that respondent was fit to resume sea duties.

The Court further considered respondent’s conduct. It noted that respondent did not promptly contest the fit-to-work assessment; instead, he took more than three months to consult his doctor of choice. Dr. Pascual’s Medical Certificate of January 12, 2009 found Essential Hypertension, Stage 2 and Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, with no prior history. The Court characterized this as seemingly a conclusion not supported by adequate factual and medical basis, pointing out that the record was unclear as to the extent of Dr. Pascual’s examination prior to declaring respondent unfit.

In contrast, the Court reasoned that the company-designated physicians’ diagnoses should be given greater credence, particularly because their findings were supported by laboratory tests yielding normal results. The Court also referenced Section 32-A’s allowance that a seafarer may still be employed if hypertension and/or diabetes are controlled through compliance with prescribed maintenance medications and lifestyle changes. It treated the initial company-designated physicians’ validation and subsequent “fit to work” certification as consistent with that rule. Thus, it rejected the argument that the continuation of anti-hypertensive medication necessarily contradi

...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