Title
Guerrero vs. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 222523
Decision Date
Oct 3, 2018
A casino dealer claimed work-related injury from assisting passengers, but courts ruled it occurred during a gym workout, denying disability benefits due to lack of proof.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 222523)

Background and Initial Claims

Guerrero was employed by PTCI and represented by Salinas on behalf of CC for a contract period of six months, beginning on October 12, 2011, with a salary of USD 255.00 per month. He underwent a pre-employment medical examination and was deemed fit for work. On January 15, 2012, he was involved in an incident while assisting elderly guests during a shipboard gastro-intestinal outbreak, which led to back pain. Guerrero claimed that this pain developed into a serious spinal condition requiring extensive medical treatment, including surgery.

Respondents' Defense

In response to Guerrero's claims, the respondents contended that the injury did not occur during a work-related activity but rather during a gym incident on January 22, 2012. They presented documents, including the Crew Injury Statement, supporting their assertion that Guerrero's injury arose from his personal gym activities rather than his duties as a Casino Dealer.

Labor Arbiter Ruling

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Guerrero on February 28, 2013. They affirmed that PTCI and CC were solidarily liable for Guerrero's permanent disability benefits, attributing the injury to Guerrero’s work despite respondent claims of a gym-related origin. The ruling noted Guerrero’s incapacity for more than 120 days post-repatriation, ordering the respondents to pay him USD 60,000, excluding Salinas as a party to the case.

NLRC Appeal and Ruling

Respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision on July 31, 2013. The NLRC concluded Guerrero did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that his injury was work-related, dismissing his claims for lack of merit. Guerrero's motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied.

Court of Appeals Decision

Guerrero then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld the NLRC's decision on September 10, 2015. The CA found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC and reaffirmed that Guerrero’s injury did not stem from a work-related activity, denying his claims for disability benefits and damages.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court found Guerrero's petition without merit. It emphasized that the case primarily involved a factual inquiry regarding the nature of Guerrero’s injury, which had been consistently determined by the lower courts to be non-work-related. The Court reiterated that the burden of proof lay with Guerrero to establish a causal connection between his employment and his injury. It ruled that Guerrero had failed to demonstrate this link with substantial evidence, restating that findings of fact by the NLRC, upheld by the CA, are generally conclusive.

Legal Principles Applied

The Supreme Court underscored the significance of two essential criteria for comp

...continue reading

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