David v. OSG Shipmanagement Manila, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jessie David (David) was employed as a Third Officer by OSG Shipmanagement Manila, Inc. (OSG Manila) for its principal Michaelmar Shipping Services, Inc. aboard the M/T Raphael. This was his third contract with OSG Manila, having worked for them since December 2004. He underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) and was declared fit for sea duty. On November 2006, David complained of pain in his left foot and was diagnosed with "lipoma on the left upper leg" and a possible "calcaneus spur of the left foot." Upon repatriation on December 4, 2006, he was referred to the company-designated physician, Dr. Robert Lim, who referred him for an MRI. The MRI revealed a "Large soft tissue mass of the anterior left thigh," and a subsequent Pathology Report showed "Malignant fibrous histiocytoma, myxoid type. Margins of resection negative for tumor." On February 27, 2007, OSG Manila certified David's entitlement to sickness allowance. Dr. Christopher Co Peña noted that the etiology of soft tissue sarcoma is multifactorial and depends on exposure to certain factors, stating it was difficult to determine if David's work history had a bearing unless there was documented exposure to specific chemicals. On June 28, 2007, OSG Manila issued a Certification stating David was given a "permanent disability Grade One (1)." Despite undergoing chemotherapy, OSG Manila allegedly refused to shoulder expenses. David filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits, medical and transportation expenses, damages, and attorney's fees. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of David, finding him permanently and totally disabled and entitled to benefits, damages, and attorney's fees, noting the respondents' failure to categorically deny the work-relatedness of the disability and their issuance of a Grade I disability certification. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's decision, holding that respondents were estopped from impugning the work-related nature of the illness due to the certification and payment of sickness allowance. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC, ruling that David failed to present substantial evidence to prove the work-relatedness of his illness, as Dr. Peña's opinion was inconclusive and the certification of Grade I disability did not automatically establish work-relation. David filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but he passed away during its pendency and was substituted by his wife and children. The CA denied the motion. The Petition: Petitioners argued that the CA erred in overturning the LA and NLRC decisions, asserting the presumption of work-relatedness and the respondents' failure to present substantial evidence to overcome it. They also contended that there was a reasonable causal connection between David's illness and his duties as a Third Officer. Respondents countered that the CA's denial was correct, as a "convenient presumption" was insufficient without real and substantial evidence to dispute the company physician's opinion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the resolutions of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter regarding the work-relatedness of seafarer Jessie David's illness and his entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits. Whether the respondents are estopped from denying the work-relatedness of David's illness due to their prior actions and admissions. Whether the evidence presented by David meets the required quantum of substantial evidence to support the findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Decision of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution are reversed and set aside. The Resolutions of the NLRC are reinstated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the work-relatedness of the illness and entitlement to benefits: The Court held that Section 20(B)(4) of the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) establishes a disputable presumption that illnesses not listed in Section 32 are work-related, favoring the seafarer. The employer bears the burden of rebutting it with substantial evidence. David suffered from malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH), not listed in Section 32, and presented substantial evidence of work-relatedness. His duties exposed him to hazardous chemicals in crude oil, and medical opinions indicate that soft tissue sarcomas like MFH have multifactorial etiology, with exposure to chemical carcinogens being a risk factor. A reasonable linkage between the disease and the work is sufficient, and the respondents failed to convincingly refute this connection. On the respondents' admission and estoppel: The Court found that the respondents, through OSG Manila, admitted David's Grade I disability by issuing a Certification dated June 28, 2007. This certification, coupled with the respondents' contemporaneous act of extending sickness allowance under Section 20(B) of the POEA-SEC (which applies only to work-related injuries or illnesses), strongly validated the work-relatedness of David's illness. The respondents' argument that the certification only pertained to the gravity of the ailment, not its nature, was dismissed. Employers do not certify the gravity of an illness unless it relates to employment, thus implying an admission of work-connection. The certification, issued after medical opinions suggested a possible work-related etiology contingent on documented exposure, implicitly filled the information gap regarding David's exposure to carcinogenic chemicals inherent in his work on a crude tanker. On the quantum of evidence: The Court reiterated that the quantum of evidence required in labor cases is substantial evidence. The evidence presented by David, including the disputable presumption, the nature of his work, the potential exposure to hazardous chemicals, the company's certification of Grade I disability, and the payment of sickness allowance, collectively constituted substantial evidence to support the LA and NLRC's findings. The respondents' attempt to rely on an alleged opinion of the company physician confirming the absence of work-relation was found to be unsubstantiated by the documentary evidence, which showed only imprecise and ambivalent medical opinions.
Main Doctrine
The disputable presumption under Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC that illnesses not listed in Section 32 are work-related stands unless rebutted by substantial evidence. The employer's certification of a Grade I disability and payment of sickness allowance further validate the work-relatedness of the seafarer's illness.