Title
Onia vs. Leonis Navigation Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 256878
Decision Date
Feb 14, 2022
Seafarer with pre-existing conditions deemed fit for duty suffered stroke onboard; SC ruled illnesses work-related, awarded total/permanent disability benefits, attorney’s fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 256878)

Applicable Law

The governing law in this case includes the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and relevant provisions of the Philippine Labor Code. These legal frameworks outline the rights and obligations of seafarers and employers concerning employment-related injuries and illnesses.

Factual Background

Onia was engaged by respondents as an oiler for the vessel MV Navios Koyo for nine months, starting on February 13, 2014. He underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) on August 18, 2015, where he was deemed fit for duty but was prescribed maintenance medications for his pre-existing conditions of hypertension and diabetes. On May 20, 2016, while aboard, Onia experienced severe health issues indicative of a stroke, which were eventually diagnosed as a cerebrovascular infarct, hypertensive cardiovascular disease, and diabetes mellitus. Subsequent medical evaluations affirmed his permanent disability, leading to his filing for benefits against the respondents.

Claim of Disability Benefits

The crux of Onia's claim rested on his assertion that his illness was work-related, thus entitling him to total and permanent disability benefits under the POEA-SEC. He contended that respondents were responsible for his medical expenses and compensation due to the nature of his employment and the circumstances leading to his medical condition.

Respondents' Defense

In response, the respondents argued that Onia concealed his pre-existing medical conditions during the PEME and that his illness was not work-related. They cited a lack of sufficient evidence from Onia’s medical doctors that would link his medical condition to his role and responsibilities as an oiler.

Labor Arbiter's Ruling

The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially ruled in favor of Onia, recognizing his illness as work-related and emphasizing the compensability of cardiovascular diseases as per established jurisprudence. The LA dismissed the respondents' arguments regarding concealment as an unintentional oversight, pointing out that the company’s medical examinations confirmed awareness of Onia’s pre-existing conditions. As a result, the LA ordered respondents to pay Onia substantial disability benefits, damages, and attorney's fees.

National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) Ruling

The NLRC later reversed the LA's decision, asserting that Onia failed to prove the work-relatedness of his illness and had concealed critical health information in his PEME, thus disqualifying him from receiving benefits. The NLRC maintained that the medical certificates provided by Onia's doctors lacked sufficient analysis connecting his illnesses to his employment.

Court of Appeals' (CA) Ruling

The CA upheld the NLRC's findings, concluding that Onia did not demonstrate that his condition was work-related, and reiterated that his concealment during the PEME disqualified him from claiming benefits. Both the CA and NLRC emphasized the necessity of clear linkage between Onia's health conditions and his work environment.

Supreme Court's Ruling

Upon reevaluation, the Supreme Court granted Onia's petition, determining

...continue reading

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