Intercrew Shipping Agency v. Calantoc
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Ofrecino B. Calantoc was hired as a fourth engineer by Intercrew Shipping Agency, Inc. for its foreign principal, Star Emirates Marine Services. Despite a pre-employment medical examination declaring him fit for sea duty, he experienced a stroke four months into his contract. He was repatriated to the Philippines and subsequently diagnosed with a convexity meningioma, a brain tumor, for which he underwent surgery. He claimed disability benefits, medical expenses, damages, and attorney's fees, asserting his illness was work-related and that petitioners refused to provide medical assistance. Petitioners contended that the respondent's sign-off was voluntary due to pre-existing high blood pressure, that he refused post-employment medical examination, and that his claim was stale. 2. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the petitioners to pay disability benefits, medical reimbursement, and sickness wages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), however, granted the petitioners' appeal and dismissed the respondent's complaint for lack of merit. The respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA granted the petition, annulling and setting aside the NLRC's decision and reinstating the LA's decision with a modification regarding attorney's fees. 3. The Petition: This case is before the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The petitioners seek to annul and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, which reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision awarding disability benefits to the respondent. The petitioners argue that the respondent's sign-off was voluntary and not due to work-related medical grounds, that subsequent circumstances belie his claim, and that there is no proof his illness is work-related, thus denying his entitlement to benefits and attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent's illness (meningioma and stroke) is work-related and compensable under the POEA-SEC, considering the conditions of sea travel and the presumption of work-relatedness established by the PEME. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the respondent's complaint for disability compensation, and whether the CA correctly reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision. Whether the respondent is entitled to permanent total disability benefits, medical expenses, sickness wages, damages, and attorney's fees, and whether these liabilities under the POEA-SEC are cumulative.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated November 27, 2017, and the Resolution dated May 10, 2018, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141153 are affirmed. Petitioners are ordered to pay respondent US$60,000.00 as permanent total disability benefit, US$2,800.00 as sickness allowance, P557,062.50 as medical expenses, and US$1,000.00 as attorney's fees. All monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of the Decision until fully satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of work-relatedness and compensability: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. It reiterated that for an illness to be compensable under the POEA-SEC, it must be work-related and must have existed during the term of employment. The definition of "work-related illness" requires that the seafarer's work involve the described risks, the disease was contracted due to exposure to these risks, it was contracted within a period of exposure, and there was no notorious negligence on the seafarer's part. The Court emphasized that even if the hypertension was pre-existing, the fact that the respondent was declared fit for sea duty during his PEME created a presumption that his subsequent illness was work-related. The conditions of sea travel, such as exposure to extreme temperatures, the quality of food, and the strain and stress of duties, were considered factors that could have contributed to or aggravated his hypertension, leading to the stroke and the development of the meningioma. The Court adopted the principle that if the work contributed even to a small degree to the development or aggravation of the disease, compensation is warranted. Furthermore, the employer "takes the employees as he finds them" and assumes the risk of liability for ensuing ailments. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC: The Court found that the CA correctly ascribed grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction, characterized by patent and gross evasion of a positive duty or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The NLRC's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence for a work-related illness was deemed not in accord with the evidence on record and settled legal principles. The CA's reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter's decision, which found the illness compensable, was therefore upheld. On the entitlement to benefits: The Court found that the respondent was entitled to permanent total disability benefits because he was unable to resume his position as a fourth engineer or be hired by other maritime employers. Section 20(B)(6) of the POEA-SEC mandates employers to pay disability benefits for permanent total or partial disability caused by work-related illness or injury. The Court clarified that the liabilities under Section 20(B) of the POEA-SEC, namely sickness allowance, medical treatment, and disability benefits, are not mutually exclusive but cumulative, consistent with the constitutional policy of full protection to labor. The award of US$60,000.00 as permanent total disability benefit, US$2,800.00 as sickness allowance, P557,062.50 as medical expenses, and US$1,000.00 as attorney's fees was deemed proper and in accordance with law and jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer's illness, even if pre-existing, is presumed to be work-related and compensable if they were declared fit for sea duty during their Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) and the illness manifested or was aggravated during the term of their employment. The employer assumes the risk of liability when they hire employees as they find them, especially when the conditions of employment increase the risk of contracting the illness.