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.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 154684)

Background and Employment Details

Mario H. Ong was first employed by BW Shipping Philippines, Inc. in January 1999 and was subsequently promoted on multiple occasions. He was last hired on March 19, 2008, as the Chief Steward and Chief Cook for a duration of nine months on the vessel BW Hemina, earning a monthly salary of USD 1,127. Prior to his embarkation on March 29, 2008, Ong underwent a medical evaluation by company-designated physicians and was declared fit for sea duty.

Illness and Medical Condition

On June 8, 2008, Ong began experiencing various health issues, including dizziness and shortness of breath. Following a consultation on June 17, he was diagnosed with uncontrolled diabetes and hypertension, leading to his repatriation on June 20, 2008, for further evaluation and treatment by company-designated physicians. Despite being certified fit to work on October 2, 2008, Ong reported that his health condition did not improve, prompting him to seek an independent medical opinion.

Legal Proceedings Initiated by the Respondent

Seeking financial support for his medical expenses, Ong filed a complaint against the petitioners, requesting permanent disability benefits, medical reimbursements, damages, and attorney’s fees. The Labor Arbiter, Enrique L. Flores, ruled in Ong's favor on June 19, 2009, granting him USD 90,000 in disability benefits based on the premise that his illness arose during his employment.

Appeals and Decisions by Labor Organizations

The petitioners appealed the Labor Arbiter's decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which upheld the ruling on October 27, 2009, while emphasizing that it was vital for the illness to be work-related for compensability. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on December 22, 2009.

Court of Appeals Ruling

In 2012, following a petition for certiorari filed by the petitioners, the Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC's decision, noting that although Ong was declared fit to resume duties, he remained unable to work due to his ongoing health issues. The appellate court found that Ong had sufficiently demonstrated the work-related nature of his illnesses.

Supreme Court's Review Standard

The Supreme Court reviewed the case under the jurisdiction established for labor cases, focusing on whether the Court of Appeals correctly identified any grave abuse of discretion perpetrated by the NLRC. It reiterated that such determination is rooted in whether the decisions of lower tribunals are supported by substantial evidence.

Findings on Disability Benefits Denied

The Supreme Court concluded that Ong was not entitled to permanent total disability benefits. The requisite burden of proof under Section 20(B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC was not met, specifically regarding the employee's obligation to show that his conditions were work-related and existed during the term of his employment contract.

Nature of Diabetes and Hypertension

The Supreme Court classified diabetes mellitus as a non-occupational disease since it stemmed from hereditary factors and lifestyle choices. It highlighted that essential hypertension could qualify as an occupational disease under specific conditions, which Ong failed to substantiate. Consequently, the Court deemed that Ong's inability to demonstrate how his work duties contributed to his diabetes and hypertension negated his claims for compensation.

Evaluation of Medical Evidence

The judgment emphasized the precedence of evaluations made by company-designated physicians, no

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.