7 9 Digest
7 9 Digest
7 9 Digest
MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION AND/OR CRUISE SHIPS The Labor Arbiter’s Decision
CATERING AND SERVICES INTERNATIONAL N.V., petitioners, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION) Labor Arbiter Marita V. Padolina (LA Padolina) ruled in respondent’s favour.
AND ROMMEL B. CEDOL, respondents. The respondent’s illness to be work-related, hence compensable.She
explained that the respondent’s work need not be the main cause of his
FACTS: illness; it is enough that his employment had contributed even in a small
degree to the development of the disease.She also ruled that the respondent
On July 14, 2004, the respondent entered into a seven-month contract of was not fit to work as a seafarer because he had undergone chemotherapy
employment with petitioner Magsaysay Maritime Corporation (Magsaysay
Maritime) for its foreign principal, Cruise Ships Catering and Services The NLRC Ruling
International N.V. (Cruise Ships); he was employed as an assistant
housekeeping manager on board the vessel Costa Mediterranea with a basic The NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision in toto in its resolution.The
monthly salary of US$482.00. The respondent submitted himself to the respondent is not fit to work as a seafarer because he is suffering from
required PreEmployment Medical Examination (PEME), and was pronounced recurrent lymphoma—a sickness that requiredhim undergo
fit to work.Respondent had previously worked as housekeeping cleaner and chemotherapy.The NLRC explained that the respondent is in a state of
assistant housekeeping manager on board the petitioners’ other vessels from permanent total disability because he can no longer earn wages in the same
2000 to 2004. kind of work. There was a reasonable connection between the nature of the
respondent’s work as assistant housekeeping manager and the development
November 2004, the respondent felt pain in his lower right quadrant.He of his illness
underwent a procedure called exploratory laparotomy which revealed a
massive tumor in the terminal ileum and in the ascending colon near the The CA Decision
hepatic flexture.the respondent underwent a surgical procedure called right
The CA, in its decision denied the petition for lack of merit.It is enough that
hemicolectomy with end to endilectransverse anastomosis.
the work has contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the
The respondent was discharged from the hospital and repatriated to the worker’s disease. The Courts are not bound by the assessment of the
Philippines on February 1, 2005. The respondent was placed under the companydesignated physician. The findings of the physician that he is fit to
medical care and supervision of the company-designated physician, Dr. work despite the fact that he had to undergo chemotherapy is inconsistent.
Susannah Ong-Salvador (Dr.Ong-Salvador). She found him suffering from
ISSUE:
lymphoma, and declared his illness to be non-work related.
Whether the illness of the respondent is work-related thus compensable
The respondent was brought to the Chinese General Hospital and underwent
another surgery. Thereafter, Medical Progress Report found the respondent’s RULING:
recurrent lymphoma to be in complete remission, and declared him “fit to
resume sea duties” after undergoing six (6) sessions of chemotherapy. We find the petition meritorious.
The respondent filed before the Labor Arbiter a complaint for total and The Rule on Disability Benefits
permanent disability benefits, reimbursement of medical and hospital
Entitlement of seamen on overseas work to disability benefits is a
expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees against the petitioners claiming that
matter governed, not only by medical findings, but by law and by
the illness is work related.
contract.Section 20 (B), paragraph 3 of the 2000 POEA-SEC20
reads:
“Section 20-B. Compensation and Benefits for Injury or Illness. The declared fitto work at any time such declaration is justified by his medical
liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or condition.
illness during the term of his contract are as follows: x xxx 6. In case of
permanent total or partial disability of the seafarer caused by either injury or In the case before us, there is no dispute that the respondent reported to
illness the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance with the schedule of the company-designated physician for treatment immediately upon
benefits enumerated in Section 32 of this Contract. Computation of his repatriation. Problems arose when he was diagnosed with lymphoma, and
benefits arising from an illness or disease shall be governed by the rates and the company-designated physician ruled this illness to be non-work-related.
the rules of compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease was
Like other cancers, lymphoma occurs when lymphocytes are in a state of
contracted.”
uncontrolled cell growth and multiplication. It is treatable with
For disability to be compensable under Section 20 (B) of the 2000 chemotherapy, and, in some cases, radiotherapy and/or bone marrow
POEA-SEC, two elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must transplantation, and can be curable, depending on the histology, type, and
be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must stage of the disease.
have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment
Lymphoma is neither listed as a disability under Section 32
contract. Thus, it must also be shown that there is a causal
(Schedule of Disability or Impediment for Injuries Suffered and
connection between the seafarer’s illness or injury and the work for
Diseases Including Occupational Diseases or Illness Contracted) of
which he had been contracted.
the 2000 POEA-SEC nor listed as an occupational disease under
The 2000 POEA-SEC defines “work-related injury” as “injury(ies) resulting Section 32-A thereof.Nonetheless, Section 20 (B), paragraph (4) provides
in disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment” and that “those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are
“work-related illness” as “any sickness resulting to disability or death as a disputably presumed as work-related.”
result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this contract
The burden is therefore placed upon the respondent to present substantial
with the conditions set therein satisfied.” It is the company-designated
evidence, or such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman’s
as adequate to justify a conclusion that there is a causal connection between
disability.
the nature of his employment and his illness, or that the risk of contracting
Thus, the seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the the illness was increased by his working conditions. This, the respondent
company-designated physician within three (3) days from arrival for failed to do. In fact, a careful review of the records shows that the
diagnosis and treatment. For the duration of the treatment but in no case to respondent did not, by way of a contrary medical finding, assail the diagnosis
exceed 120 days, the seaman is on temporary total disability as he is totally arrived at by the company designated physician.
unable to work. He receives his basic wage during this period until he is
Dr.Ong-Salvador was able to sufficiently explain her basis in concluding that
declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the
the respondent’s illness was not work-related: she found the respondent not
company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is
to have been exposed to any carcinogenic fumes, or to any viral infection in
defined under the POEA-SEC and by applicable Philippine laws. If the 120-
his workplace. Her findings were arrived at after the respondent was made
day initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made because the
to undergo a physical, neurological and laboratory examination, taking into
seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total
consideration his (respondent’s) past medical history, family history, and
disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to
social history.
the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent
partial or total disability already exists.The seaman may of course also be
Under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code (ECC
Rules), lymphoma is considered occupational only when contracted by
operating room personnel due to exposure to anestheticswhichis not the
case herein. The fact that respondent passed the company’s PEME is of no
moment.The PEME merely determines whether one is “fit to work” at
sea or “fit for sea service,” it does not state the real state of health
of an applicant.The “fit to work” declaration in the respondent’s
PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from
any ailment.