Crew Management Philippines v. Bauzon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Erwin C. Bauzon, a seafarer hired as an Able Seaman, experienced severe throat pain during his employment on the vessel M/T D. Elephant. Despite reporting the issue, he was advised to complete his contract. Upon repatriation, he was diagnosed with multinodular goiter and later with colloid cystic goiter, leading to a bilateral thyroidectomy. Subsequent histopathologic examination revealed follicular adenoma, and he was later diagnosed with residual thyroid gland. A private physician diagnosed him with papillary cancer, declaring him permanently and totally disabled. Procedural History: Bauzon filed a complaint for disability benefits, sickness allowance, and other claims against his employers, EMS Crew Management Philippines and EMS Ship Management (Singapore) Pte., Ltd. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Bauzon, awarding disability benefits and sickness wages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding the illness compensable and the seafarer entitled to sickness allowance. The Court of Appeals, in turn, denied the employers' petition for certiorari, upholding the NLRC's findings that Bauzon's papillary cancer was work-related and compensable. The Petition: The petitioners, EMS Crew Management Philippines, EMS Ship Management (Singapore) Pte., Ltd., and Robert C. Bandivas, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They argue that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Bauzon was entitled to permanent total disability compensation, citing the seafarer's burden to prove a causal connection between employment and illness. They also contend that the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the mandate that only medically repatriated seafarers are entitled to sickness allowance and in awarding attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether or not Bauzon's ailment, papillary cancer, is compensable for being work-related as to entitle him to permanent and total disability benefits, considering the Supreme Court's ruling in Damaso R. Casomo v. Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. et. al. regarding the burden of proof for seafarers. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disregarding the mandate of Section 20(B) regarding sickness allowance for medically repatriated seafarers, and whether Bauzon was entitled to such allowance. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it affirmed the NLRC's award of attorney's fees to Bauzon.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. It held that Bauzon's ailment is work-related and compensable, entitling him to permanent and total disability benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Bauzon's ailment is work-related and compensable: The Court held that Bauzon substantially proved the conditions set forth in Sections 32-A and 20(B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC. Although papillary cancer is not specifically listed as an occupational illness, Section 20(B)(4) of the 2000 POEA-SEC provides a disputable presumption that illnesses not listed are work-related. For compensability, a seafarer must show a reasonable connection between the nature of work and the illness. Bauzon, as an Able Seaman, was exposed to harsh sea weather, chemical irritants, dusts, heat, stress, long hours of work, and limited air, all of which could have contributed to his illness. The Court reiterated that it is enough that the employment contributed, even to a small degree, to the development or aggravation of the disease. The employer assumes the risk of liability when a seafarer is re-hired and issued a fit-to-work certification despite knowledge of a pre-existing medical condition, as was the case when petitioners re-hired Bauzon despite his thyroid nodules diagnosis. On the issue of entitlement to sickness allowance: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA. The records showed that Bauzon was repatriated due to his medical condition and subsequently underwent treatment and surgery at the company-accredited hospital. The NLRC correctly affirmed the Labor Arbiter's finding that Bauzon was entitled to sickness allowance. On the issue of attorney's fees: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in affirming the award of attorney's fees. The award was based on the fact that Bauzon was compelled to litigate to enforce his rights, which is a valid ground for attorney's fees.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer's illness is compensable if there is a reasonable connection between the nature of his work and the illness contracted or aggravated, even if the illness is not specifically listed in the POEA-SEC, provided the conditions for compensability under Section 32-A and Section 20(B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC are met. The employer assumes the risk of liability if a seafarer is re-hired and issued a fit-to-work certification despite knowledge of a pre-existing medical condition.