ILLNESS IS COMPENSABLE EVEN IF THE NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT IS NOT THE SOLE AND ONLY REASON FOR IT

Illness to be compensable, it is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and only reason for the illness suffered by the seafarer.

It is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had.

Thus, the Supreme Court held that:

Grieg Philippines, Inc. Grieg Shipping Group vs. Gonzales
G.R. No. 228296, July 26, 2017

Facts:

Gonzales was hired by Grieg, a shipping agent, and deployed to the general cargo vessel Star Florida. At that time, this was his third contract with Grieg.

Get an updated and renumbered Labor Code 2017-2018 by Atty. Villanueva

While aboard Star Florida, Gonzales was advised to take paracetamol and to rest after he experienced “shortness of breath, pain in his left leg, fatigue, fever and headaches.” A week later, Gonzales sought medical attention in South Korea after he experienced the same symptoms. With his medical tests showing normal results, he was given medications and sent back to work in Star Florida.

The following month, his past symptoms returned with the added symptom of black tarry stools. Gonzales was confined in a hospital in Indonesia where he was initially diagnosed with “pancytopenia suspect a plastic anemia.” Gonzales was declared unfit for sea duty and was repatriated. He disembarked on October 8, 2013.

Gonzales was admitted at the Metropolitan Medical Center after his medical repatriation. The company physicians diagnosed him with acute promyelocytic leukemia. They opined that Gonzales’ leukemia was not work-related; although, for humanitarian reasons, Grieg continued to pay for his treatment.

Grieg claimed that Gonzales suddenly stopped consulting the company physicians. Gonzales denied this, countering that he informed Grieg that he would be unable to attend the scheduled appointment because he was still raising money to travel from his hometown to Manila. Gonzales claimed that his request to reschedule his appointment was granted, and thus, was surprised with the notification that Grieg had discontinued is treatment.

Gonzales sought a second opinion from an independent physician, Dr. Emmanuel Trinidad, who certified that his leukemia was work-related. After his disability claims were refused, Gonzales filed a complaint against Grieg before the Labor Arbiter.

LA Ruling:

The Labor Arbiter found that Gonzales’ leukemia was work-related and that it had permanently incapacitated him to work as a seafarer.

Grieg appealed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision before the National Labor Relations Commission.

NLRC Ruling:

The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. It also denied Grieg’s motion for reconsideration.

CA Ruling:

The Court of Appeals upheld the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission and denied Grieg’s Petition.

The Court of Appeals ruled that with the inclusion of leukemia among the occupational diseases in Section 32-A of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract, the burden of proving that it was work-related was no longer with the employee. Instead, the employer must prove otherwise-that Gonzales’ leukemia was not work-related. The Court of Appeals opined that Grieg failed in this regard.

The Court of Appeals asserted that even if it was assumed that leukemia was not an occupational disease, Section 20-A, paragraph 4 of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract made a disputable presumption favoring seafarers.

Section 20-A, paragraph 4 holds that all illnesses not listed as an occupational disease in Section 32-A are deemed work-related. The Court of Appeals upheld the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission that Gonzales was entitled to the sickness allowance under the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the permanent disability benefits of US$90,000.00.

Issue/s:

Whether or not it is necessary for compensability of illnesses that the nature of the employment is the sole reason for the seafarer’s illness

SC Ruling:

Citing Magsaysay Maritime Services vs. Lauret the SC held that for illness to be compensable, it is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and only reason for the illness suffered by the seafarer. It is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had.

Gonzales was able to satisfy the conditions under Section 32-A and establish a reasonable linkage between his job as an Ordinary Seaman and his leukemia. He has submitted his official job description, which involved constant exposure to chemicals. It is also not disputed that he contracted leukemia only while he was onboard Star Florida since he was certified to be fit for sea duty prior to boarding and his leukemia was not genetic in nature.

Grieg did not present the official job description and duties of the position of an ordinary seaman, to show that Gonzales was never exposed to paints and cleaning agents that contain the highly toxic compound benzene. Petitioners did not submit the cargo manifest on dates material to this case to prove that the ship’s load does not include harmful chemicals.

Even if we the opinion of Gonzales’ own physician is disregarded, Grieg miserably failed to dispute the medical finding that Gonzales’ leukemia is not hereditary, as his tests reveal no apparent chromosome abnormality.

This undeniable circumstance, taken together with Gonzales’ testimony, plus the fact that he was declared fit for sea duty prior to boarding the vessel for two (2) consecutive employment contracts with the same company, all the more bolster the conclusion that the conditions set forth in Section 32-A regarding the work-relatedness of his leukemia are present in this case.