Jebsens Maritime v. Babol
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eleno A. Babol, a seafarer, was diagnosed with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma (NPC) after noticing a swelling in his neck during his employment. The company-designated physicians recommended extensive palliative treatment, which the petitioners covered. Despite this, Babol sought permanent disability benefits, asserting his condition was work-related. The petitioners contested this, citing a company oncologist's report suggesting non-work-related causes such as diet, viral agents, and genetic susceptibility. Procedural History: Babol filed a claim for permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, and medical reimbursement before the Labor Arbiter (LA). The LA ruled in favor of Babol, awarding him US$60,000.00 in total disability benefits, finding a causal relationship between his cancer and his diet on board, and that the petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of work-relatedness. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's decision but deleted the award for attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently dismissed the petitioners' petition for certiorari, upholding the NLRC's findings that Babol's working conditions caused or aggravated his illness. The Petition: The petitioners seek a review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. They argue that the CA erred in ruling that Babol's condition is work-related, in considering his prior employments, and in concluding that they failed to present substantial evidence to disprove work-relatedness. The petitioners contend that no connection between Babol's work and his cancer was sufficiently established, and that the CA blindly adopted the NLRC's conclusion without sufficient proof, particularly regarding the dietary risk factors.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that respondent’s condition, Nasopharyngeal Cancer, is work-related. Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in considering respondent’s supposed prior employments with petitioners as relevant in determining entitlement to disability benefits. Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that petitioners failed to present substantial evidence that respondent’s condition is not work-related.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court affirms the entitlement of respondent Eleno A. Babol to permanent total disability benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that respondent’s condition, Nasopharyngeal Cancer, is work-related: The Court found that Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma (NPC) is a non-occupational disease and thus enjoys a disputable presumption of work-relatedness under Section 20(B), paragraph 4 of the POEA-SEC. This presumption favors the seafarer unless the employer presents contrary evidence. The petitioners relied on the medical report of Dr. Co Peña, which stated that the condition was "likely not work-related." However, the Court interpreted "likely" as "probable" and "likelihood" as "probability," indicating a hesitant and uncertain tone that did not foreclose the possibility of work relation. Therefore, the presumption of work-relatedness remained. The Court also considered the theory of work-aggravation, noting that risk factors for NPC include salt-cured foods, which were allegedly part of the seafarer's diet. While the respondent's assertion of his diet did not constitute substantial evidence, the petitioners also failed to definitively disprove the work-relatedness or aggravation. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in considering respondent’s supposed prior employments with petitioners as relevant in determining entitlement to disability benefits: The Court did not explicitly rule on this issue in its main discussion. However, the context of the case revolves around the employment period covered by the contract under which the illness manifested and was claimed. The petitioners argued that only the period specified in the contract could be used as a basis for compensability. While the CA mentioned the respondent working for petitioners in "various capacities for almost two decades," the core of the ruling focused on the presumption of work-relation and the failure to overcome it, as well as the lack of a fitness-to-work certification, rather than the specific duration of prior employments. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that petitioners failed to present substantial evidence that respondent’s condition is not work-related: The Court held that the petitioners failed to present substantial evidence to disprove the presumption of work-relatedness. Their primary reliance was on the medical report of Dr. Co Peña, which used the term "likely not work-related." The Court found this assessment to be equivocal and not a categorical statement of non-work relation. The Court emphasized that "likely" signifies probability, not certainty, and thus did not sufficiently rebut the disputable presumption. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners submitted documents showing varied provisions, while the respondent countered that salt-cured fish was still included. The Court treated these submissions as equal and insufficient to definitively disprove the claim. The absence of a certification of fitness to work from the company-designated physician within the 240-day period further supported the seafarer's claim.
Main Doctrine
The employer failed to overcome the disputable presumption of work-relatedness for the seafarer's Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma (NPC) due to the equivocal nature of the company-designated physician's assessment. In the absence of a clear certification of fitness to work within the 240-day period, the seafarer is entitled to permanent total disability benefits based on the loss of earning capacity.