Case Summary (G.R. No. 48421)
Factual Antecedents
In January 2012, Dominador passed a pre-employment medical examination and boarded the KUMUL Project site. On March 27, 2012, he underwent appendectomy and colostomy following acute abdominal pain. He was repatriated on April 8, hospitalized at Asian Hospital, and on May 9, 2012, diagnosed with Stage 3 adenocarcinoma of the sigmoid colon. Oncologist Dr. Jhade Lotus P. Peneyra opined that his long exposure to carcinogens at sea and poor onboard diet aggravated his condition and rendered him permanently unfit for sea duty.
Claim and Labor Arbiter Decision
Dominador filed before the NLRC a claim for permanent and total disability benefits under the POEA-SEC. The Labor Arbiter found him to be a seafarer aboard the “M/V KMT Platform,” entitled to US$60,000 disability and US$6,000 attorney’s fees, reasoning that his actual duties and working conditions qualified him under the seafarer definitions.
NLRC Decision
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Arbiter, ruling that Dominador was a land-based project employee on an offshore rig, not a seafarer on a vessel engaged in maritime navigation. It awarded him only US$598.08 as final pay and denied other claims. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
Court of Appeals Decision
By Certiorari under Rule 65, Dominador secured reversal of the NLRC. The CA reinstated the Arbiter’s grant of full disability benefits, holding that he was indeed a seafarer whose disease was compensable under the POEA-SEC. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
Applicable Law on Seafarer Status
Article 13(g) of the Labor Code defines “seaman” as one employed in a vessel engaged in maritime navigation. POEA Seafarer Rules (2003, 2010, and 2016) mirror this requirement, qualifying only those aboard ships or mobile offshore drilling units in the high seas. Fixed offshore platforms or installations anchored to the seabed, not navigating, fall outside the definition.
Supreme Court Analysis on Seafarer Status
The Court found contradictory factual findings among tribunals but reviewed them under exceptions allowing factual inquiry. It held that the KUMUL Marine Terminal Platform was a fixed port structure, not a navigable vessel or mobile unit in the high seas. Dominador’s own pleadings conceded the platform’s stationary nature. Thus, he was a land-based worker, not a seafarer, and the POEA-SEC’s disability provisions did not apply.
Supreme Court Analysis on Medical Causation
Even if Dominador were a seafarer, his two-month stint could not be
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 48421)
Factual Background
- In January 2012, V People Manpower Phils., Inc. (“V Manpower”) engaged Dominador C. Buquid (“Dominador”) as deck crew/rigger for Cape Papua New Guinea Ltd. (“Cape PNG”) on the KUMUL Marine Terminal Rejuvenation Works in Papua New Guinea, for an estimated six‐month period.
- Dominador passed a pre‐employment medical examination and was declared “fit to work” by the company physician before deployment on January 17, 2012.
- On March 26, 2012, Dominador experienced severe abdominal pain; an appendectomy and incidental colostomy were performed on March 27.
- He was repatriated to the Philippines on April 8, 2012, admitted to Asian Hospital on April 9, and discharged on April 12 with instructions for follow‐up.
- By May 9, 2012, after laboratory investigations, Dominador was diagnosed with Stage 3 adenocarcinoma of the sigmoid colon.
- He sought a second opinion from oncologist Dr. Jhade Lotus P. Peneyra, who issued medical abstracts concluding the illness was occupation‐related/aggravated and permanently disabling for sea duties; noted prior 22‐year seafaring exposure to carcinogens and high‐fat shipboard diet.
Claims and Contentions
- Dominador filed for permanent and total disability benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (“POEA‐SEC”); petitioners denied the claim.
- He then complained before the NLRC, alleging entitlement as a seafarer exposed to harmful chemicals, strenuous labor, harsh weather elements, and poor diet.
- V Manpower countered that it is a land‐based recruitment agency, that Dominador was hired as a land‐based project employee (not a seafarer), that no vessel was involved, and that there was no proof his cancer was work‐related.
Labor Arbiter’s Decision
- The Labor Arbiter found Dominador was employed as a seafarer aboard “M/V KMT Platform,” qualifying him for POEA‐SEC disability benefits.
- Ordered V Manpower and Cape PNG to pay US$60,000 in permanent and total disability b