Skippers United Pacific v. Lagne
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Estelito S. Lagne was hired as an Oiler on board the vessel "Nicolaos M" by Skippers United Pacific, Inc. and its foreign principal, Ikarian Moon Shipping Co., Ltd. During his employment, Lagne began experiencing pain in his anus, chest pains, and difficulty breathing, which progressively worsened. He reported a protruding mass on his anus that increased in size. He was medically repatriated after being diagnosed with a "rectal mass" and declared unfit for duty. Upon his return to the Philippines, further medical evaluations confirmed the presence of an "anorectal mass," and subsequent tests revealed moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma with probable tumoral spread and multiple hepatic nodules, as well as tiny pulmonary nodules. Procedural History: While undergoing medical assessment, Lagne filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits, sick wages, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his claim, ruling that his illness was not work-related and upholding the company-designated physician's assessment over a second opinion. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding the illness compensable due to aggravated working conditions and awarding disability benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC's ruling. Petitioners sought reconsideration, but their motion was denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The petitioners, Skippers United Pacific, Inc. and Ikarian Moon Shipping Co., Ltd., seek to reverse the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that Lagne failed to present substantial evidence that his colorectal cancer is work-related and that the award of attorney's fees was improper due to the absence of bad faith. They contend that the illness is not listed as an occupational disease under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and that the appellate court erred in adopting the NLRC's conclusion regarding unhealthy food provisions and strenuous work aggravating the condition.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an error of law when it affirmed the grant of contractual benefits to Lagne despite the latter's failure to present any substantial evidence to show that his colorectal cancer is work-related. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an error of law in affirming the award of attorney's fees despite the absence of any evidence showing bad faith on the part of petitioners.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated April 30, 2014 and the Resolution dated February 23, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 123897 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of work-relatedness of Lagne's illness: The Court held that for disability to be compensable under Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC, two elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract. While Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC lists occupational diseases, for illnesses not mentioned therein, a disputable presumption of work-relatedness exists in favor of the seafarer. However, the claimant must still prove by substantial evidence that his work conditions caused or, at least, increased the risk of contracting the disease. The Court found that Lagne was able to meet this degree of proof. His duties as an oiler involved manual and laborious tasks, such as carrying heavy weights, which he asserted caused him pain and aggravated his condition. The Court also took judicial notice of the typical food provisions on ships, which are often high in fat and low in fiber, and concluded that these provisions, combined with Lagne's strenuous work and advanced age (55 at the time of hiring), contributed to the development or aggravation of his rectal illness. The Court reiterated that it is enough that employment contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease, and it is not necessary for employment to be the sole factor. The Court also affirmed that Lagne's illness started to exist or developed during his nine-month employment contract, as he began experiencing pain in January 2010 and was diagnosed in May 2010. On the issue of attorney's fees: The Court affirmed the award of attorney's fees, stating that Lagne was compelled to litigate due to the petitioners' failure to satisfy his valid claim. The Court reiterated that where an employee is forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights and interest, he is entitled to an award of attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total award at the time of actual payment.
Main Doctrine
For disability to be compensable under the POEA-SEC, the injury or illness must be work-related and must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract. For illnesses not listed under Section 32, a disputable presumption of work-relatedness exists, but the claimant must still prove by substantial evidence that work conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting the disease. It is enough that employment contributed, even in a small degree, to the development or aggravation of the disease.