[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
105 views2 pages

Seafarer's Disability Claim Denied

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent was not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. While the respondent's illness was disputably presumed to be work-related, the petitioners provided evidence from two physicians that the illness was congenital/idiopathic in nature and not caused by work. The respondent failed to prove that his cavernoma illness was reasonably connected to his work as a security guard or that the demands of his job increased the risk of the illness. Therefore, the two requirements for compensable disability under the applicable law - that the illness be work-related and occur during employment - were not satisfied in this case.

Uploaded by

Harlene
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
105 views2 pages

Seafarer's Disability Claim Denied

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent was not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. While the respondent's illness was disputably presumed to be work-related, the petitioners provided evidence from two physicians that the illness was congenital/idiopathic in nature and not caused by work. The respondent failed to prove that his cavernoma illness was reasonably connected to his work as a security guard or that the demands of his job increased the risk of the illness. Therefore, the two requirements for compensable disability under the applicable law - that the illness be work-related and occur during employment - were not satisfied in this case.

Uploaded by

Harlene
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CASE #115

C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., et. al. vs. RHUDEL A. CASTILLO


G.R. No. 208215, April 19, 2017

FACTS:
On June 6, 2008, respondent was hired by petitioner C.F. Sharp Crew Management on behalf
of its foreign principal, to serve as Security Guard on board the vessel MV Norwegian Sun. While on
board the vessel, respondent suffered from difficulty of breathing and had a brief seizure attack
causing him to fall from his bed. Respondent was repatriated to the Philippines on October 7, 2008,
and was referred to the company-designated physicians. Petitioners shouldered all the expenses in
connection with respondent's medical treatment. Respondent was, likewise, paid his sickness wages
for the period from September 25, 2008 to April 30, 2009. Petitioners' physician, Dr. Pobre, declared
that the illness of respondent which is cavernoma is not work-related as the same is congenital in
nature, while petitioners' other physician Dr. Ong-Salvador declared the same as idiopathic in its
causation and, thus, not work-related. Petitioners' physicians differ in their view on the causation of
respondent's illness, but both are one in declaring that the illness is not work-related, as opposed to
the statement of respondent's physician, Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo, that the illness is work-related.
On December 16, 2009, respondent filed a Complaint for permanent and total disability
benefits, damages and attorney's fees. Respondent alleged that he is entitled to a maximum disability
compensation of US$120,000.00 under the Norwegian Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). On
September 6, 2010, Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. The LA opined that while the illness of
respondent is disputably presumed to be work-related, petitioners have substantially disputed the
presumption of work-connection. The NLRC affirmed the Decision of the LA. The CA reversed the
Decision of the NLRC, holding that petitioners have not overcome the disputable presumption of
work-relatedness of the disease due to the conflicting statements of the petitioners' physicians as to
the cause of respondent's illness.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.

HELD:
No. Considering that respondent was hired in 2008, the 2000 POEA-SEC applies. For
disability to be compensable under Section 20 (B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, two elements must
concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must
have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract. In other words, to be
entitled to compensation and benefits under this provision, it is not sufficient to establish that the
seafarer's illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled; it must also be shown
that there is a causal connection between the seafarer's illness or injury and the work for which he
had been contracted.
Respondent did not adduce proof to show reasonable connection between his work as Guard
and his cavernoma. There was no showing how demands and nature of his job vis-a-vis ship's
working conditions increased risk of contracting cavernoma. The medical certificate issued by Dr.
Vicaldo was not based on results from medical tests and procedures. While Dr. Ong-Salvador and Dr.
Pobre are familiar with respondent's medical history and condition, thus, their medical opinion on
whether respondent's illness is work-aggravated/-related deserve more credence as opposed to Dr.
Vicaldo's unsupported conclusions. Respondent failed to refute findings that his illness was not work-
related.

You might also like