Resurreccion v. Southfield Agencies, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Julie Fuentes Resurreccion was hired as a Third Engineer on board M/V Eco Spitfire. He complained of yellow discoloration of his eyes and skin, was medically repatriated, and diagnosed with Liver Cirrhosis with Jaundice and Massive Ascites. The company-designated physician assessed the illness as not work-related. Procedural History: Petitioner consulted an independent physician who declared his illness work-related and him permanently and totally unfit to work. Petitioner filed a complaint for disability benefits, sickness allowance, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but awarded financial assistance. The NLRC affirmed the dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC ruling. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in ruling there was no reasonable causal connection between his illness and his work.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. Whether petitioner is entitled to sickness allowance. Whether petitioner is entitled to damages and attorney's fees; and the liability of Arlene Bautista.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA decision, and ordered the respondents to jointly and solidarily pay petitioner disability benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits: The Court held that while Liver Cirrhosis is not listed as an occupational disease under the POEA-SEC, it is disputably presumed to be work-related. The Court found a probable link between petitioner's illness and his work, considering his prior illness, his immediate redeployment, and the stressful and strenuous nature of his duties, including exposure to harmful chemicals and extreme heat. Furthermore, the company-designated physician failed to issue a final, conclusive, and definite assessment within the 120-day period (or 240-day extended period), thus rendering petitioner's disability permanent and total. On the entitlement to sickness allowance: The Court ruled that petitioner is entitled to sickness allowance because the company-designated physician failed to make a final diagnosis of his illness within the prescribed period. However, since petitioner admitted receiving medical assistance for the first month of his repatriation, his entitlement was limited to 90 days. On the entitlement to damages and attorney's fees; and the liability of Arlene Bautista: The Court found that petitioner was forced to litigate to protect his rights and interests, thus entitling him to attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total award. The claim for moral and exemplary damages was not explicitly discussed in the ratio but the award of attorney's fees implies a finding of necessity to litigate. The Court affirmed the solidary liability of Arlene Bautista, an officer of Southfield, with the company, pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer's illness, even if not listed as an occupational disease, is compensable if there is a reasonable linkage between the nature of the seafarer's work and the illness, and the company-designated physician fails to issue a final medical assessment within the prescribed period, rendering the disability permanent and total.