Casomo v. Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Damaso R. Casomo was employed as an Able seaman by respondent Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. for its foreign principal, Columbia Shipmanagement Ltd., on board the vessel "YM DA NANG." Prior to his deployment, Casomo underwent a Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) and was declared fit for work. During his employment, Casomo developed a lump on his right face, which was diagnosed in Japan as a tumor of the right lower jaw. He was repatriated to the Philippines for further examination, where he was diagnosed with Ameloblastoma, a condition requiring a hemimandibulectomy. The company-designated physician declared the illness not work-related. Despite this, Casomo claimed permanent disability benefits, asserting his illness was work-related. Procedural History: Casomo filed a complaint for permanent disability benefits, medical expenses, damages, and attorney's fees before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint, finding no evidence that his Ameloblastoma was connected to his work. The NLRC reversed this decision, awarding Casomo US$60,000.00 in permanent disability benefits, reasoning that the illness was contracted during his employment and that illnesses not listed in Section 32 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract are disputably presumed to be work-related, with the burden of proof resting on the employer. The Court of Appeals, however, granted the petition for certiorari filed by the respondents, reversing the NLRC's resolution and finding that Casomo failed to establish a causal connection between his illness and his work. The Petition: Petitioner Casomo seeks review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the appellate court committed a serious error of law in reversing the NLRC and ignoring evidence supporting his entitlement to maximum disability benefits. He contends that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying his benefits solely because the company-designated physician declared his illness as not work-related. Casomo asserts that his illness is disputably presumed to be work-related under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, and the burden of proving otherwise lies with the employer. He further argues that the company-designated physician's assessment was self-serving and biased. The petition raises the issues of whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and whether it abused its discretion in denying benefits based on the company physician's declaration.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious error of law in reversing the NLRC and ignoring evidence supporting petitioner's entitlement to disability benefits, specifically regarding the burden of proof and the disputable presumption of work-relatedness. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying disability benefits solely because the company-designated physician declared the illness as not work-related, focusing on the lack of causal connection and the nature of work-related illnesses.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 102925 is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to disability benefits, burden of proof, and the disputable presumption: The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that Casomo failed to demonstrate that his illness, Ameloblastoma, was work-related. While Casomo invoked the disputable presumption under Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, the Court emphasized that this presumption does not dispense with the claimant's burden of proof. Casomo's bare allegation, without any linkage between his work as an Able seaman and the contraction of Ameloblastoma, did not constitute substantial evidence. The Court reiterated that awards of compensation cannot rest entirely on bare assertions and presumptions; the claimant must present evidence to prove a positive proposition. The Court clarified that the disputable presumption found in Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract did not relieve Casomo of his burden of proof. It remained incumbent upon him to discharge the required quantum of proof of compensability. The Court cited Quizora v. Denholrn Crew Management (Phil.), Inc. and Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission to underscore that a seafarer cannot simply rely on the presumption without solid proof of work-relation, work-causation, or work-aggravation. On the denial of disability benefits, lack of causal connection, and the nature of work-related illnesses: The Court noted that Ameloblastoma is not listed under Section 32-A of the POEA Standard Employment Contract on Occupational Diseases. For an occupational disease to be compensable, Section 32-A requires that the seafarer's work must involve the described risks, the disease was contracted as a result of exposure to these risks, it was contracted within a period of exposure, and there was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer. The Court found that Casomo failed to satisfy these conditions, as he did not demonstrate that his work as an Able seaman involved risks that led to his Ameloblastoma. The Court found that Casomo's own research highlighted that the cause of Ameloblastoma is not understood and listed potential causes such as dental irritation, cavities, injury, infections, or dietary deficiencies, none of which made reference to a seafarer's work. Ultimately, while it was undisputed that Casomo contracted his illness during his term of employment and that it led to his permanent disability, he failed to show a causal connection between his Ameloblastoma and his work as an Able seaman. The Court concluded that there was simply no probable causal connection between Casomo's work and his contraction of the illness, rendering his claim for permanent disability benefits without merit.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer claiming permanent disability benefits due to an illness not listed in Section 32 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, even if disputably presumed work-related, must still present substantial evidence to establish a causal connection between the illness and their work. The presumption does not dispense with the claimant's burden of proof.