Teekay Shipping v. Jarin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Exequiel O. Jarin was employed as Chief Cook by Teekay Shipping Philippines, Inc. (Teekay Phils.) for its foreign principal, Teekay Shipping Limited, commencing July 6, 2006. During his deployment on the vessel M.T. Erik Spirit, Jarin developed swelling in his elbows, diagnosed as rheumatoid arthritis in Canada. Upon repatriation on March 24, 2007, he was referred to company-designated physicians who noted his condition, along with side effects from steroid medication (moon facies and bipedal edema) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The company physicians ultimately opined that his rheumatoid arthritis and COPD were not work-related, with the latter attributed to his smoking history. Despite this, Jarin was declared unfit for further sea duties and subsequently became a partial disability pensioner of the Social Security System. Procedural History: On April 18, 2008, Jarin filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) seeking permanent total disability benefits, sickness allowance, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Jarin, awarding disability and sickness benefits, finding the petitioners' evidence insufficient to dispute the presumption of work-relatedness for illnesses not explicitly listed in the POEA-SEC. Both parties appealed. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding the company physicians' reports more credible and concluding Jarin's illnesses were not work-related. Jarin then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the NLRC, reinstating the Labor Arbiter's ruling and awarding Jarin US$60,000.00 in disability benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney's fees. The Petition: Teekay Shipping Philippines, Inc., Teekay Shipping Limited, and Alex Verchez filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. They argue that the CA erred in finding Jarin's disability work-related based on his unsubstantiated allegations, in awarding sickness allowance despite Jarin not being medically repatriated, and in ordering the payment of attorney's fees. The petitioners contend that Jarin failed to establish a causal connection between his work conditions and his illnesses, and that the company-designated physicians' reports clearly indicated his conditions were not work-related.
Issue(s)
Whether Jarin suffered a work-related disability based on his allegations regarding his tasks onboard. Whether Jarin is entitled to sickness allowance despite not being medically repatriated. Whether the award of attorney's fees is proper.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals awarding permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney's fees in favor of respondent Exequiel O. Jarin.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of work-related disability: The Court reiterated that under the 2000 POEA-SEC, illnesses not listed in Section 32 are disputably presumed to be work-related. The burden is on the claimant to present substantial evidence that working conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting the disease. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to justify a conclusion of a causal connection between the nature of employment and the illness, or that the risk of contracting the illness was increased by working conditions. Only reasonable proof of work-connection is required, not direct causal relation. In this case, Jarin provided a detailed narration of his duties as Chief Cook, including handling heavy provisions, working in extreme temperatures inside and outside the freezer for extended periods, and the constant transition between heat from the stove and cold from the freezer. The Court found this narration sufficient to establish a reasonable proof of work-connection, demonstrating how his working conditions increased the risk of contracting rheumatoid arthritis. Furthermore, the medical opinions from the company-designated physicians themselves indicated Jarin's rheumatoid arthritis and the intensive treatment administered, culminating in a recommendation that he was no longer fit for sea duties, which the Court considered as clear evidence of permanent incapacitation. On the issue of sickness allowance: The Court agreed with the LA and CA that the petitioners failed to present any evidence showing they paid Jarin's sickness allowance. The petitioners' argument that Jarin finished his contract and was not medically repatriated was deemed insufficient to escape liability. The Court emphasized that upon Jarin's arrival in the Philippines, he was still suffering from his ailments, as confirmed by the petitioners' own physician. This confirmed ongoing illness, despite the completion of his contract, necessitates the payment of sickness allowance for the period of his incapacity to work, as stipulated in the POEA-SEC. On the issue of attorney's fees: The Court found the award of attorney's fees to be correct and legally justified under Article 2208(8) of the Civil Code, which allows for the grant of attorney's fees in actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws. This provision is applicable in cases involving claims for disability benefits and sickness allowance by seafarers, as it aims to provide compensation for expenses incurred in pursuing such claims.
Main Doctrine
The presumption that illnesses not listed in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC are work-related can be overcome by substantial evidence from the employer proving otherwise. However, only reasonable proof of work-connection, not direct causal relation, is required to establish compensability of a non-occupational disease, and the doubt should be resolved in favor of the seafarer.