Leonis Navigation v. Villamater
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Private respondent Catalino U. Villamater was hired as Chief Engineer for the ship MV Nord Monaco, owned by petitioner World Marine Panama, S.A., through petitioner Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. After passing his Pre-Employment Medical Examination and being deployed, Villamater suffered severe intestinal bleeding and was diagnosed with Obstructive Adenocarcinoma of the Sigmoid with multiple liver metastases and other complications while abroad. He was repatriated and confirmed by company-designated physicians, who, however, opined his condition was not work-related but suggested a disability grading of 1. Subsequently, Villamater filed a complaint for permanent and total disability benefits, reimbursement of medical expenses, and damages. 2. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Villamater, declaring his illness compensable and ordering petitioners to pay disability benefits and attorney's fees, while dismissing claims for damages. Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC dismissed their respective appeals and affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition. The CA also denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration, leading to the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Petitioners seek review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing the CA erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC, in upholding the award of permanent and total disability benefits despite alleged lack of basis and disregard of evidence showing the illness was not work-related, in holding that non-joinder of indispensable parties did not warrant dismissal, and in affirming the award of attorney's fees. They contend the CA erroneously dismissed their petition for certiorari on procedural grounds, specifically the finality of the NLRC decision and the execution of the award, and that the CA should have considered the merits of their claim that Villamater's colon cancer was not work-related.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the NLRC's dismissal did not constitute grave abuse of discretion, and whether final and executory decisions or resolutions of the NLRC render appeals to superior courts moot and academic. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that non-joinder of indispensable parties warranted the outright dismissal of the Petition for Review on Certiorari. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the NLRC's decision to award Grade 1 Permanent and Total Disability Benefits to seaman Villamater, specifically regarding the compensability of Villamater's colon cancer. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the NLRC's decision to award Grade 1 Permanent and Total Disability Benefits to seaman Villamater, specifically regarding the company-designated physician's opinion. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the award of attorney's fees.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed May 3, 2007 Decision and the July 23, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the finality of the NLRC decision: The Court held that while the NLRC's resolution denying the motion for reconsideration had become final and executory, and the judgment award had been executed, a petition for certiorari before the CA is still a valid remedy. The CA has the power to review NLRC decisions for grave abuse of discretion, which means the NLRC decision would be considered null and void ab initio if such abuse is found. The 60-day period under Rule 65 for filing a petition for certiorari was considered reasonable, even if the 10-day period for appeal had lapsed. The execution of a final and executory decision proceeds despite a pending petition for certiorari unless a temporary restraining order is issued. On the issue of non-joinder of indispensable parties: The Court agreed with the petitioners that the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of non-joinder of indispensable parties. While the widow of the deceased seafarer is an indispensable party, the Rules of Court provide that misjoinder or non-joinder of parties is not a ground for dismissal. The proper remedy is to implead the indispensable party at any stage of the action, and the court may order their inclusion or give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint. On the compensability of Villamater's colon cancer: The Court disagreed with the petitioners' argument that colon cancer is not an occupational disease under the POEA Standard Contract and that its risk was not increased by Villamater's working conditions. While colon cancer is not explicitly listed, Section 20 of the Contract creates a disputable presumption that illnesses not listed are work-related. The Court found that the interplay of age, hereditary factors, and dietary provisions at sea contributed to the development of colon cancer. The diet provided on board, consisting mainly of high-fat, high-cholesterol, and low-fiber foods, was found to have increased his risk. The Court reiterated that for a non-occupational disease, reasonable proof of work-connection, not direct causal relation, is required, and probability, not certainty, is the test. On the company-designated physician's opinion: The Court noted that while one company-designated physician opined that the cancer was "not work-related," she also suggested a Disability Grade 1, which constitutes total and permanent disability under the POEA Standard Contract. This statement, being non-definitive and lacking medical explanation, was considered negated by the suggested disability grading. The company-designated physician's certification is crucial for determining permanent disability. On the award of attorney's fees: By reason of Villamater's entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits, the Court affirmed the award of attorney's fees, not under Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code, but under Article 2208(8) of the same Code, which pertains to actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer's illness, even if not listed as an occupational disease under the POEA Standard Contract, is compensable if it can be reasonably proven that the work conditions aggravated the illness or increased the risk of contracting it. Probability, not the ultimate degree of certainty, is the test of proof in compensation proceedings. Furthermore, a petition for certiorari does not stay the execution of a final and executory decision unless a temporary restraining order is issued.