Destriza v. Fair Shipping
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Florencio B. Destriza (Destriza), a seafarer, filed a complaint for permanent disability benefits and other damages against Fair Shipping Corporation (FSC), Angel C. Cachapero, and Boseline S.A. (Boseline). Destriza was employed as a cook on M/V Cygnus, owned by Boseline and serviced by FSC as its local manning agent. On December 10, 2003, while on board, Destriza experienced symptoms of abdominal pain, fever, and jaundice, leading to a diagnosis of biliary duct stone, jaundice, and suspected pancreatitis in Japan. Upon repatriation, he was treated by FSC's company physician, Dr. Nicomedes Cruz, who diagnosed him with "Chronic Calculus Cholecystitis" and declared him fit to work on August 10, 2004. Destriza, however, insisted he remained unfit and sought a second opinion from Dr. May S. Donato-Tan, who declared him "unfit to resume work as a seaman in any capacity." Procedural History: The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA) found Destriza not entitled to permanent total disability benefits but awarded him US$20,000.00, finding that he contracted the illness while in the employ of the respondents. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the PVA's Resolution by deleting the US$20,000.00 award for lack of legal basis, stating that the POEA Standard Employment Contract does not provide for compensation simply because an illness became apparent while on board or due to consecutive contracts. The CA also gave greater weight to Dr. Cruz's finding that Destriza was fit to return to work. Destriza's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Destriza filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that the CA erred in deleting the award. He claimed his exposure to extreme environments and high-fat diet as a cook contributed to his gallstones and inflammation, making his illness work-related. He also contended that his inability to work for more than 120 days meant permanent disability, entitling him to benefits.
Issue(s)
Whether Destriza is entitled to disability benefits as previously awarded by the PVA. Whether Destriza is entitled to the US$20,000.00 award.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' Decision, denying Destriza's petition and ordering him to return the conditionally paid amount of P902,440.00 to Fair Shipping Corporation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to disability benefits: The Court held that Destriza failed to establish, by substantial evidence, that his illness, Chronic Calculus Cholecystitis, was work-related or work-aggravated. While the illness was not listed in Section 32-A of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, which creates a disputable presumption of work-relatedness, Destriza bore the burden of proving this connection. His general allegations regarding exposure to extreme temperatures and a high-fat diet as a cook were deemed insufficient, amounting to mere possibilities rather than the required probability anchored on credible information. The Court reiterated that awards of compensation cannot rest on speculations or presumptions, and bare allegations do not discharge the required quantum of proof. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the POEA Standard Employment Contract does not grant compensation simply because an illness became apparent while on board the vessel or due to consecutive contracts, as there must be a proven link between the illness and the employment conditions. On the entitlement to the US$20,000.00 award: The Court also noted that Destriza's failure to resort to a third-doctor opinion was fatal to his claim, as the opinion of the company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz, who declared him fit to work, prevails over the opinion of his personal doctor, Dr. Donato-Tan, in the absence of such a third-doctor opinion. Consequently, the PVA's award of US$20,000.00 was without legal basis, and the CA correctly deleted it.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer claiming disability benefits for an illness not listed in Section 32-A of the POEA Standard Employment Contract bears the burden of establishing, by substantial evidence, that the illness is work-related or work-aggravated, despite the disputable presumption of work-relatedness. The opinion of the company-designated physician prevails over the seafarer's personal doctor in the absence of a third-doctor opinion.