Case Summary (G.R. No. 186180)
Factual Background
Respondent underwent a Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) and was declared fit to work. He boarded Costa Mediterranea on July 19, 2004. Prior to this contract, he had already served as housekeeping cleaner and assistant housekeeping manager on petitioners’ other vessels from 2000 to 2004.
In November 2004, respondent experienced pain in his lower right quadrant. He was brought to and consulted at Andreas Constantinou Medical Center in Cyprus. On January 18, 2005, he underwent an exploratory laparotomy, which revealed a massive tumor in the terminal ileum and the ascending colon near the hepatic flexure. On the same day, he underwent right hemicolectomy with end-to-end ileotransverse anastomosis.
The Histopathology Report concluded that appearances were consistent with a malignant lymphoid infiltration of the ileum and mesenteric lymph nodes, and with intestinal lymphoma of small and large lymphoid cells. Respondent was discharged and repatriated on February 1, 2005.
Upon repatriation, respondent was placed under the care of petitioners’ company-designated physician, Dr. Susannah Ong-Salvador. In her Initial Medical Report dated February 10, 2005, Dr. Ong-Salvador found respondent to be suffering from lymphoma and declared the illness to be non-work related. On April 14, 2005, respondent underwent an excision biopsy at Chinese General Hospital. Dr. Ong-Salvador later reported that respondent’s recurrent lymphoma was in complete remission and that, after undergoing six sessions of chemotherapy, he was “fit to resume sea duties.”
Labor Arbiter Proceedings
On June 16, 2006, respondent filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter, praying for total and permanent disability benefits, reimbursement of medical and hospital expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees. He asserted that he contracted his illness while working on board petitioners’ vessel.
The Labor Arbiter (Marita V. Padolina) ruled for respondent. She found that respondent was permanently and totally disabled and awarded disability compensation of US$60,000.00 (or its peso equivalent) and US$6,000.00 as attorney’s fees. The Labor Arbiter characterized the illness as work-related and held that the disease was aggravated by work, reasoning that respondent had consistently passed petitioners’ physical examinations since 2000. She further stated that work need not be the main cause; it sufficed that employment contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease. She also emphasized that only respondent had developed lymphoma among petitioners’ workers did not eliminate the aggravation from employment. Finally, she concluded that respondent was not fit to work as a seafarer because he had undergone chemotherapy, and she awarded attorney’s fees on the ground that respondent was compelled to litigate to protect his rights.
NLRC Ruling
Petitioners appealed, but the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter in a resolution dated April 30, 2008 and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated July 31, 2008. The NLRC held that respondent was not fit for seafaring because he was suffering from recurrent lymphoma, a sickness requiring chemotherapy. It described respondent’s condition as permanent total disability, reasoning that he could no longer earn wages in the same or similar kind of work suited to his training and accustomed nature of work.
The NLRC further found a reasonable connection between respondent’s position as assistant housekeeping manager and the development of his illness. It pointed out that respondent had passed every PEME before entering the six employment contracts from 2000 to 2005, and that he was declared “fit to work” each time. It reasoned that the illness developed only after respondent was exposed to an extreme working environment on petitioners’ vessel. The NLRC also reiterated that law required only a reasonable work connection, not direct causal proof.
CA Review and Ruling
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for provisional relief before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 105625. The CA denied the petition in its December 15, 2008 decision and likewise denied reconsideration in its January 28, 2009 resolution.
The CA held that under the provisions of the POEA-SEC, it was enough that the work contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the illness. It further held that courts were not bound by the company-designated physician’s assessment. The CA treated Dr. Ong-Salvador’s declaration that respondent was “fit to resume sea duties” as inconsistent with the fact that respondent had undergone chemotherapy and required periodic check-ups. The CA nevertheless affirmed the award of attorney’s fees, reasoning that Article 2208 of the Civil Code permitted attorney’s fees in actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer liability laws.
Issues Raised in the Supreme Court Petition
In their Rule 45 petition, petitioners argued that the CA erred in sustaining the NLRC’s affirmance of an award of US$60,000.00 in total and permanent disability benefits despite the company-designated physician’s finding that the illness was not work-related. Petitioners contended that under the 2000 POEA-SEC, only work-related injury or illness was compensable. They also insisted that the company-designated physician’s findings deserved credence. They further argued that lymphoma was not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, and that respondent’s duties as an assistant housekeeping manager did not involve carcinogenic fumes or chemicals capable of causing cancer.
Court’s Review Framework Under Rule 45
The Court found the petition meritorious. It explained that petitioners’ argument essentially involved the claim that the evidence did not support the tribunal and the CA’s findings that the illness was work-related. Ordinarily, such an inquiry called for factual review, which lay beyond the Court’s normal function. However, the Court clarified the posture of the petition: it was reviewing the CA’s decision rendered on a Rule 65 certiorari petition. Consequently, the Court assessed legal correctness through the prism of whether the CA correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision. The Court added that it may, in exceptional cases, delve into factual issues when alleged insufficient or insubstantial evidence makes such review necessary to prevent grave abuse of discretion. It treated the present case as one of those exceptional situations.
Legal Basis for Compensability of Disability
The Court reiterated that entitlement of seamen to disability benefits is governed not only by medical findings but also by law and contract. It identified the material statutory provisions as Articles 191 to 193 of the Labor Code, in relation with Rule X of the Rules implementing Book IV of the Labor Code. By contract, the POEA-SEC, as incorporated through Department Order No. 4, series of 2000, and the parties’ collective bargaining agreement bound the seafarer and the employer.
The Court focused on Section 20-B, paragraph 3 of the 2000 POEA-SEC, which provides that in cases of permanent total or partial disability caused by injury or illness, the seafarer shall be compensated according to the schedule of benefits. The Court underscored the emphasized phrase that benefits depend on disability “caused by either injury or illness” and that computation is based on the rates and rules applicable at the time the illness or disease was contracted.
From this provision, the Court held that two elements had to concur for compensability under Section 20-B: first, the injury or illness had to be work-related; and second, the work-related injury or illness had to exist during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract. The Court stressed that it was not enough to show permanent or partial disability; there had to be a causal connection between the illness or injury and the work for which the seafarer was contracted.
The Court also recalled that the 2000 POEA-SEC defined work-related injury as injury resulting in disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment. It defined work-related illness as any sickness resulting in disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A, subject to the conditions therein satisfied.
Role of the Company-Designated Physician and the Presumption Mechanism
The Court explained that, under the 2000 POEA-SEC, the company-designated physician is entrusted with assessing disability and medical fitness within the contract’s framework. It described the post-repatriation process under the contract: the seafarer had to report to the company-designated physician within a prescribed period upon arrival for diagnosis and treatment; during the period of treatment, he was on temporary total disability until declared fit or until the degree of permanent disability was assessed by the company-designated physician, with specified maxima for temporary total disability if the condition required further medical attention.
In the case, respondent did report to the company-designated physician upon repatriation. The dispute arose after diagnosis. Dr. Ong-Salvador ruled lymphoma as non-work related. The Court noted that lymphoma is a cancer that may be treated with chemotherapy and can be curable depending on histology, type, and stage. It further pointed out that lymphoma is not listed as a disability in Section 32 of the 2000 POEA-SEC and is not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-A. Nevertheless, under Section 20-B, paragraph (4) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, illnesses not listed in Section 32 are disputably presumed as work-related, placing the burden on the seafarer to present substantial evidence of a causal connection between employment and illness, or that the risk of contracting the illness was increased by the working conditi
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 186180)
- The petitioners (Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and/or Cruise Ships Catering and Services International N.V.) sought Rule 45 review of a Court of Appeals (CA) judgment that affirmed National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) rulings granting the respondent disability benefits and attorney’s fees.
- The CA had acted on a Rule 65 petition filed by the petitioners, challenging NLRC affirmances of the Labor Arbiter’s disability award.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the CA correctly determined that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s findings.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The respondent (Rommel B. Cedol) filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for total and permanent disability benefits, reimbursement of medical and hospital expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees.
- The Labor Arbiter ruled for the respondent and awarded US$60,000.00 disability compensation and US$6,000.00 attorney’s fees.
- The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in full, and later denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
- The petitioners filed a certiorari petition with the CA under Rule 65, with a prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order.
- The CA denied the petition for lack of merit and denied reconsideration.
- The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the CA, setting aside the CA decision and dismissing the respondent’s Labor Arbiter complaint.
Key Factual Allegations
- The respondent entered into a seven-month contract of employment with the petitioners for its foreign principal, Cruise Ships, as assistant housekeeping manager on board the vessel Costa Mediterranea.
- The respondent had undergone the required Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) and was declared fit to work.
- The respondent had prior employment on other vessels of the petitioners from 2000 to 2004, including work as housekeeping cleaner and assistant housekeeping manager.
- In November 2004, the respondent experienced pain in his lower right quadrant and was examined and later treated in Cyprus.
- On January 18, 2005, exploratory laparotomy revealed a massive tumor in the terminal ileum and ascending colon near the hepatic flexure.
- On the same date, the respondent underwent a right hemicolectomy with end-to-end ilectransverse anastomosis.
- The histopathology findings concluded that the appearances were consistent with malignant lymphoid infiltration and intestinal lymphoma of small and large lymphoid cells.
- The respondent was discharged and repatriated on February 1, 2005, and after repatriation he was placed under the care of the company-designated physician, Dr. Susannah Ong-Salvador.
- In an initial report dated February 10, 2005, Dr. Ong-Salvador declared the illness non-work related and based the conclusion on the absence of exposure to carcinogenic fumes, absence of relevant viral infection by history, and lack of family history of cancer.
- In April 2005, the respondent underwent further medical procedure at the Chinese General Hospital, and Dr. Ong-Salvador later reported recurrent lymphoma in complete remission after chemotherapy.
- The respondent filed his Labor Arbiter complaint for disability benefits on June 16, 2006, asserting that he contracted his illness while working on board.
Medical Findings and Treatment Course
- The Supreme Court treated lymphoma as a type of cancer that begins in lymphocytes and presents as a tumor of lymphoid cells, and it noted that lymphoma is treatable with chemotherapy and may be curable depending on histology, type, and stage.
- The initial medical report of Dr. Ong-Salvador identified lymphoma as cancer of the lymph nodes and concluded that its etiology could arise from genetic predisposition, cytogenetic abnormalities, viral infection, or exposure to highly carcinogenic fumes.
- The initial report stated that by history the respondent had not been exposed to carcinogenic fumes, had no viral infection such as Epstein Barr virus in his workplace, and had no family history of cancer, leading to the conclusion that the condition was non-work related.
- The Supreme Court emphasized that the report was developed from physical, neurological, and laboratory examinations that considered past medical history, family history, and social history, and it noted evaluation by a specialist surgeon and an oncologist.
- The medical progress report later declared the respondent fit to resume sea duties, citing disease regression and his oncologist’s view that he responded well after six sessions of chemotherapy.
- The medical progress report characterized the respondent as asymptomatic and cleared from oncology on that basis, and it listed the final diagnosis as recurrent lymphoma, in complete remission.
- The Supreme Court observed that the respondent did not present contrary medical evidence disputing the conclusions on non-work relatedness and fitness to resume sea duties.
Statutory and Contractual Framework
- The Supreme Court held that entitlement to seamen’s disability benefits on overseas work is governed by law, by contract, and by medical findings, with legal and contractual terms controlling alongside medical assessment.
- The applicable statutory provisions included Articles 191 to 193 of Chapter VI (Disability Benefits) of the Labor Code, and Rule X of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book IV of the Labor Code.
- By contract, the parties were bound by the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) as provided under Department Order No. 4, series of 2000, and by the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
- Under Section 20(B), paragraph 3 of the 2000 POEA-SEC, compensation for permanent total or partial disability requires that the disability is caused by work-related injury or illness and that computation follows the rates and rules applicable at the time the illness or disease was contracted.
- The Court ruled that two elements must concur for compensability under Section 20(B): the illness must be work-related, and the work-related