Ilustricimo v. NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Aldrine B. Ilustricimo was engaged by respondents as a Quarter Master from 1993 to 2014. During his last employment in April 2014, he experienced gross hematuria and was diagnosed with urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder (bladder cancer) by the company-designated doctor. Risk factors identified included occupational exposure to aromatic amines and cigarette smoking. The company doctor gave an interim disability rating of Grade 7, later finalized as Grade 7 - moderate residuals or disorder of the intra-abdominal organ. Petitioner sought a second opinion from Dr. Richard Combe, who diagnosed bladder mass and declared him unfit to work, requiring ongoing treatment. Procedural History: Petitioner claimed total and permanent disability benefits. The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (VA) awarded him USD95,949.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified this, awarding only partial permanent disability benefits of USD40,106.98, citing petitioner's failure to secure a second medical certification and to refer the case to a third doctor as mandated by the POEA-SEC. The CA gave more weight to the company-designated doctor's assessment. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to reverse the CA's ruling, arguing that the CA erred in relying on the Grade 7 disability rating and in finding that he failed to secure a second opinion. He also contends that respondents are responsible for the non-referral to a third doctor.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioner is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. Whether petitioner's illness is work-related. Whether petitioner breached his duties under the POEA-SEC regarding the third-doctor referral procedure. Whether petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside. The Decision of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators is reinstated, ordering respondents to pay petitioner US$95,949.00 in total and permanent disability benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioner is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits: The Court found that the CA erred. The company-designated doctor diagnosed petitioner with bladder cancer and noted occupational exposure to aromatic amines as a risk factor. Given petitioner's 21 years of service, the Court found it plausible that his work contributed to or aggravated his illness. The respondents themselves did not dispute the work-relatedness and compensability of the illness, only the extent of the disability. Therefore, the Court reinstated the VA's award of total and permanent disability benefits. On whether petitioner's illness is work-related: The Court affirmed that the illness is work-related. For an illness to be compensable, it must be work-related and exist during the employment contract. Illnesses not listed in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC are disputably presumed work-related. Petitioner's illness, bladder cancer, was diagnosed by the company doctor, who also identified occupational exposure to aromatic amines as a risk factor. This established a reasonable linkage between the illness and his work, satisfying the requirement of substantial evidence. On whether petitioner breached his duties under the POEA-SEC regarding the third-doctor referral procedure: The Court ruled that petitioner did not breach his duties. While the POEA-SEC mandates a third-doctor referral if there is disagreement, the Court clarified that the company bears the burden of activating this process upon notification of the seafarer's intent to dispute the company doctor's assessment. Petitioner's October 16, 2015 letter informed respondents of his condition and intent to seek further examination. The respondents failed to initiate the third-doctor referral, thus their reliance on the company doctor's assessment was misplaced. The Court distinguished this case from prior rulings where the seafarer completely disregarded the procedure. On whether petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits: The Court held that petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The Court reiterated that disability is understood more on the loss of earning capacity. Petitioner could not resume sea duties due to the risk associated with his occupation and the recurrence of his illness, requiring ongoing medical monitoring and treatment. The fact that he was never declared "cancer-free" and "fit to work," coupled with the persistence of his condition, demonstrated a total and permanent loss of earning capacity, entitling him to 100% compensation as per the CBA.
Main Doctrine
The Court reinstated the award of total and permanent disability benefits to the seafarer, holding that his illness was work-related and that the respondents failed to comply with the third-doctor referral procedure under the POEA-SEC, thus rendering the company-designated doctor's assessment not binding. The Court emphasized that disability should be understood more on the loss of earning capacity rather than its medical significance.