Title
Source: Supreme Court
De Leon vs. Maunlad Trans, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 215293
Decision Date
Feb 8, 2017
Seafarer diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease after prolonged exposure to toxic fumes and extreme work conditions; SC ruled illness work-related, granting disability benefits and attorney's fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 215293)

Employment Conditions and Medical Condition

Petitioner served for two years, typically working ten to twelve hours a day, during which he was sometimes tasked with being a "fire watch" while repairs were conducted on the vessel. This role exposed him to extreme heat and toxic fumes, leading to health concerns. De Leon began experiencing distressing neurological symptoms, described as uncontrollable blinking, shaking, and difficulty in speaking and breathing. Diagnosed with cerebral atrophy and later Parkinson’s Disease, he underwent various treatments and was ultimately deemed unfit for duty.

Initial Administrative Rulings

The Labor Arbiter, recognizing the severity of De Leon's medical diagnosis, ruled in September 2011 that his illness was work-related due to the presumption established by the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). This presumption indicated that illnesses not explicitly listed in Section 32 of the contract are presumed work-related unless proven otherwise by the employer. The Labor Arbiter ordered the respondents to pay $60,000 in disability benefits. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision in December 2012, supporting the conclusion that De Leon’s employment contributed to the development of his illness.

Court of Appeals Decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC's ruling in October 2013, determining that Parkinson’s Disease was neither listed as a disability under the POEA-SEC nor considered an occupational disease. The CA necessitated proof of a causal connection between De Leon's illness and his work conditions, stating that the petitioner failed to meet this burden.

Grounds for Review and Legal Standards

De Leon filed a petition for review, claiming that the CA erred in its findings regarding the work-related nature of his illness and the denial of disability compensation. The Supreme Court articulated that questions of law raised must be respected unless there are inconsistencies or errors in lower court determinations based on misapprehensions of fact or incorrect standards.

Compensability Framework

The Court emphasized two essential elements for compensability under Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC: the illness must be work-related, and it must have existed during the term of employment. The POEA-SEC creates a disputable presumption in favor of seafarers for illnesses not articulated in Section 32, necessitating the employer to prove otherwise.

Court's Findings on Illness Connection

The Supreme Court examined the medical evidence and historical work conditions faced by De Leon, establishing that his illness was likely aggravated by the pressures inherent in his seafaring duties, including exposure to toxic substances and extreme work hours. The Court underscored that the employment conditions contributed to the risk of developing his illness, supporting the notion that it need not be the sole cause to be compensable.

Reversal of the CA's Ruling

In its final ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision, reinstating the

...continue reading

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