Nonay v. Bahia Shipping Services
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Maricel S. Nonay (Nonay), a seafarer, was hired by Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. (Bahia Shipping) to work on board the M/S Braemer. During her employment, she experienced profuse bleeding, dizziness, and difficulty breathing. She sought medical attention on board and later in Barbados, where ovarian cysts were diagnosed. Upon repatriation, she was treated by company-designated physicians who diagnosed her with Abnormal Uterine Bleeding Secondary to Adenomyosis with Adenomyoma. Despite not being declared fit for work within 120 days, she was declared fit to resume sea duties within 240 days. Nonay subsequently filed a complaint for disability benefits, medical expenses, damages, and attorney's fees, asserting her illness was work-related and aggravated by her duties. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Nonay, ordering Bahia Shipping to pay disability compensation and attorney's fees. Bahia Shipping appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. A motion for reconsideration was denied. Bahia Shipping then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by ruling Nonay's illness was work-related despite insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, nullified the NLRC resolutions, dismissed Nonay's complaint, but ordered Bahia Shipping to pay financial assistance. Nonay's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Nonay filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the National Labor Relations Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion. She contends her illness is work-related and aggravated by her duties, citing the presumption of work-relatedness for illnesses not listed as occupational diseases and the failure of the company-designated physician to declare her fit to work within 120 days. She also argues that her personal physician's assessment should be given weight and that the Court of Appeals erred in giving greater weight to the company-designated physician's findings. Nonay further asserts that the payment of the judgment award did not render the petition moot and academic and that the issues raised are questions of law, not fact.
Issue(s)
Whether the satisfaction of the judgment award rendered the Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals moot and academic. Whether the Petition should be dismissed for allegedly raising questions of fact. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the Petition for Certiorari and setting aside the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission. Whether petitioner Maricel S. Nonay is entitled to full disability benefits under the Norwegian Collective Bargaining Agreement. Whether the employee has the burden to prove to the court that the illness was acquired or aggravated during the period of employment before the disputable presumption that the illness is work-related or work-aggravated arises. Whether petitioner is permanently and totally disabled because the company-designated physician failed to certify that she is fit to work after the lapse of 120 days.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that Nonay failed to present substantial evidence to prove that her illness was work-related or work-aggravated, and thus, she is not entitled to disability benefits. The Court also found that her complaint for permanent disability benefits was premature as her medical treatment extended beyond 120 days but within the 240-day period allowed for temporary total disability.
Ratio Decidendi
On the mootness of the petition due to satisfaction of judgment: The Court reiterated that payment of a judgment award does not automatically render a petition for certiorari moot and academic. A petition for certiorari assailing an NLRC decision is allowed even after the decision has become final and executory, provided it is filed within the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 65. The Court of Appeals can grant the petition and modify or nullify the NLRC decision if it finds grave abuse of discretion, rendering the NLRC decision void ab initio. On whether the petition raises questions of fact: The Court clarified that the petition did not raise questions of fact but questions of law. The issue was whether Nonay was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits based on the factual findings of the labor tribunals and the CA, and whether the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. These issues require a review of applicable laws, not an evaluation of the evidence presented. On whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the Petition for Certiorari: The Court found no error in the CA's ruling. The CA correctly determined that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by ruling Nonay's illness as work-related without substantial evidence. The CA gave greater weight to the company-designated physician's findings, who had detailed knowledge of Nonay's condition, over the opinion of Nonay's personal physician, an orthopedic surgeon, who did not adequately explain the causal connection between prolonged standing/walking and adenomyoma. On entitlement to disability benefits under the CBA: The Court found that Nonay's Norwegian Collective Bargaining Agreement provision on disability due to injury from an accident was not applicable as she did not allege any accident. Furthermore, her illness, adenomyoma, is not listed as an occupational disease under the POEA-SEC. While Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC provides a disputable presumption of work-relatedness for unlisted illnesses, the seafarer must still prove a reasonable connection between the illness and their work. On the burden of proof for work-relatedness: The Court affirmed that even with the disputable presumption of work-relatedness for illnesses not listed as occupational diseases, the seafarer or claimant bears the burden of presenting substantial evidence to establish a reasonable connection between the nature of their work and the illness. This requires more than just asserting that the illness developed during employment; a causal link must be shown. The ruling in Quizora and Ayungo was reiterated, emphasizing the need for a causal connection between the illness and the work. On permanent and total disability due to failure to certify within 120 days: The Court clarified that the 120-day period for temporary total disability is not absolute. If further medical attention is required, this period can be extended to 240 days. Nonay's medical treatment, including injections, surgery, and follow-up consultations, extended beyond 120 days but within the 240-day period. Therefore, her complaint for permanent disability benefits filed on the 174th day was premature, and the labor arbiter should have dismissed it for lack of cause of action. The company-designated physician's failure to issue a fitness certification within 120 days was justified by the ongoing medical treatment.
Main Doctrine
For an illness not listed as an occupational disease to be compensable, a seafarer must present substantial evidence to prove a reasonable linkage between the nature of their work and the illness contracted or aggravated, even with the disputable presumption of work-relatedness.