Quizora v. Denholm Crew Management
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Gilbert Quizora was hired by respondent Denholm Crew Management (Philippines), Inc. (respondent company) as a messman on board international vessels. His contracts were for nine months, and upon expiration, his employment was considered terminated, after which he would be lined up for a new assignment. His last assignment was from November 4, 1999, to July 16, 2000. After his last contract, he was disqualified for sea duty due to a diagnosis of "venous duplex scan (lower extremities) deep venous insufficiency, bilateral femoral and superficial femoral veins and the (L) popliteal vein," medically known as varicose veins. Petitioner demanded disability benefits, separation pay, and reimbursement of medical expenses, which were denied. He then filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter (LA). Procedural History: The LA dismissed petitioner's complaint for lack of merit. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA's decision, ordering the respondent company to pay disability compensation. Upon denial of its motion for reconsideration, the respondent company elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The CA set aside the NLRC Resolution and reinstated the LA Decision, finding that petitioner failed to prove his ailment was work-related. Unsatisfied, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent has the burden of proving that petitioner’s illness is not work related; and whether petitioner’s illness is work related. Whether petitioner is entitled to disability benefits.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals decision reinstating the Labor Arbiter's decision dismissing the complaint is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of burden of proof and work-relatedness of the illness: The Court held that the petitioner cannot simply rely on the disputable presumption provision under Section 20(B)(4) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, as his last employment contract was executed in November 1999, which should be governed by the 1996 POEA-SEC. Even assuming the 2000 POEA-SEC applied, the disputable presumption does not relieve the claimant of the burden to present substantial evidence proving that the illness is work-related and existed during the term of employment. The petitioner failed to provide detailed narration of his work as a messman, his working conditions, or how he contracted or developed varicose veins, nor did he present expert medical opinion. The intermittent nature of his employment, with periods of being "signed-off," meant that the illness could have been acquired during these breaks, not necessarily during his sea duty. The Court reiterated that for disability to be compensable, there must be a causal connection between the illness and the work, which the petitioner failed to establish. On the issue of entitlement to disability benefits: The Court found no proof that petitioner's varicose veins caused him total and permanent disability. The Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) is not exploratory and only determines fitness to work, not the true state of health. The medical diagnosis did not expressly state that the illness was equivalent to a total and permanent disability. Therefore, without substantial evidence proving the work-relatedness and causation of the illness, and its resulting permanent disability, the petitioner is not entitled to disability benefits.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer claiming disability benefits for an illness not listed as an occupational disease must prove, by substantial evidence, that the illness is work-related and that it existed during the term of his employment contract, even if the POEA-SEC provides a disputable presumption of work-relatedness for unlisted illnesses. The pre-employment medical examination (PEME) is not exploratory and cannot be a conclusive proof of the absence of an ailment prior to deployment.