Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82943:56832&catid=1582&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:20:37+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 188190, April 21, 2014 - BARKO INTERNATIONAL, INC./CAPT. TEODORO B. QUIJANO AND/OR FUYO KAIUN CO. LTD., Petitioners, v. EBERLY S. ALCAYNO, Respondent.
BARKO INTERNATIONAL, INC./CAPT. TEODORO B. QUIJANO AND/OR FUYO KAIUN CO. LTD., Petitioners, v. EBERLY S. ALCAYNO, Respondent.
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision2 dated December 5, 2008 and the Resolution3 dated June 3, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA–G.R. SP. No. 102402 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof. The assailed CA decision reversed the Resolution4 dated November 29, 2007 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and reinstated the Decision5 dated April 10, 2007 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) upholding the award of permanent and total disability benefits in favor of Eberly S. Alcayno (respondent).
On November 18, 2005, the respondent was employed by Fuyo Kaiun Co. Ltd. through its local manning agent, Barko International, Inc. (petitioners), as Able–bodied Seaman. The employment contract6 provided for a contract period of nine months with a basic monthly salary of US$539.00, a fixed overtime pay in the amount of US$401.00 plus vacation leave with pay. His prime duty, among others, was to paint and chip rust on deck or superstructure of ship and to give directions to the crew engaged in cleaning wheelhouse and quarterdeck7 on board the vessel, M/V Cape Iris.
Having passed the required Pre–Employment Medical Examination (PEME) and found fit for sea service,8 the respondent boarded the ocean vessel M/V Cape Iris on December 1, 2005.
Patient name: Alcayno Eberly Age: 49 y[r]s.
Date: 2 / 2 / 2006.
We received Patient at 5:00 pm.
1. Severe diffuse infection in the neck with discharge of pus.
3. Fever and toxaemia due to severe infection.
1. Control D.M with insulin.
2. Drainage and cleaning to severe infection of neck under general anaesthesia then change dressing 2 times per day till control of infection and improving toxaemia and fever.
3. Giving parental massive antibiotics.
On February 8, 2006, the respondent was repatriated to the Philippines.
Upon arrival in Manila, the respondent was examined by Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz (Dr. Cruz), a company–designated physician. The diagnosis12 indicated: Uncontrolled diabetes mellitus and tuberculous adenitis. The respondent was placed under a six–month anti–tuberculosis treatment.
On July 6, 2006, the respondent filed a complaint for disability benefits, reimbursement of medical expenses, payment of the unexpired portion of his contract, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against the petitioners. To support his claim, he alleged that his illness was contracted while he was on board M/V Cape Iris; that he was repatriated for medical reasons and was treated for more than 120 days; and, that he suffered a permanent total disability with Grade 1 impediment. Thus, he should be compensated by the petitioners.
The petitioners denied the claim and averred that a company–designated physician, in fact, issued a handwritten medical evaluation on August 17, 2006 finding his condition well–controlled, asymptomatic, and stable and therefore, physically fit to resume work anytime.14 On August 22, 2006, Dr. Cruz declared the respondent fit to work on even date after completion of the anti–Koch’s medication for six months.15 Such fact was not disputed; hence, there is no disability to speak of.
In a Decision16 dated April 10, 2007, the LA granted the claim of the respondent. The LA explained that the disease suffered by the respondent was contracted during the term of his employment on board M/V Cape Iris; that he was declared fit to work even if it was indicated in his PEME that the respondent had “pulmonary fibrosis right lower lung with calcified benign nodules” and was thus able to board the vessel; that the tuberculous adenitis and diabetes mellitus of the respondent was assessed by a company– designated physician to be present upon the former’s repatriation.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering [petitioners] BARKO INTERNATIONAL, INC. and FUYO KAI[U]N CO. LTD. jointly and severally to pay [respondent] the amount of [US$]60,000.00 or its peso equivalent representing permanent and total disability.
Medical expenses in the amount of P2,766.00 is likewise awarded.
Likewise, [petitioners] are jointly and severally liable to pay [respondent] attorney’s fees equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the amount due him.
All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of basis.
In a Resolution21 dated November 29, 2007, the NLRC reversed the decision of the LA as it found no factual and legal basis to support the respondent’s allegation that the tuberculous adenitis and diabetes mellitus were contracted while on board the vessel in order for it to be considered as compensable; that tuberculous adenitis and diabetes mellitus “takes quite a number of years to develop and cannot just be acquired in so short a time as the tour of duty of the [respondent], which started on December 1, 2005 up to February 2, 2006 only[; n]or has there been evidence presented that the working conditions on board the vessel contributed to or exacerbated the physical condition of the [respondent].”22 The NLRC further criticized the failure of the respondent to seek the opinion of another doctor to contest the medical findings of the company–designated physician. Thus, it puts to question how the LA arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners failed to substantiate their averments. Lastly, the NLRC stressed that what matter more is the schedule of disability rather than the number of days the seafarer is unable to perform his customary work.23 Hence, the NLRC ordered the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.
Undaunted, the respondent sought relief to the CA via petition for certiorari.
With this, the CA also emphasized that where the claimant’s ailment occurred during and in the course of employment, the same is presumed as the cause of the ailment.25 Sadly, the petitioners failed to refute the same. It is not required that the employment was the sole factor for the development of the ailment as it is enough that the said employment contributed to it “even in a small measure.”26 Considering further that the respondent’s prime duties included the cleaning and maintenance of the deck or superstructure of the ship, which constantly exposed him to different types of hazardous chemicals like paints, thinners and other forms of agents and harmful substances, the same may have invariably contributed to the aggravation of his illness. Hence, the CA found the LA decision to be more in accord with law and jurisprudence in granting the permanent total disability benefits, as prayed for by the respondent.
In the Resolution31 dated June 3, 2009, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration of the petitioners. According to the CA, the NLRC resolution was issued on November 29, 2007 while the Vergara ruling was rendered on October 6, 2008. Thus, following the prospective application of the rules, the case of Vergara cannot be applied in the instant case. Instead, the prevailing jurisprudence on the matter is Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad32 considering that the claim of the respondent was filed on July 6, 2006 prior to Vergara. In Crystal Shipping, a medically repatriated seafarer’s continuous inability to work beyond 120 days from his sign–off from the vessel is construed as a permanent disability, without any qualification.33 Thus, the respondent is entitled to permanent disability benefits.
THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS JUST BECAUSE HIS INJURY RENDERED HIM INCAPABLE OF PERFORMING HIS WORK FOR MORE THAN 120 DAYS.
The Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the factual findings of the LA, as affirmed by the CA.
In the instant case, the respondent went through the PEME. While there was a notation of “pulmonary fibrosis right lower lung with calcified benign nodules cleared by the pulmonary specialist”36 in said report, he was declared fit for sea duties. The respondent was able to board the vessel on December 1, 2005. On February 8, 2006, he was repatriated to Manila on medical grounds. He was diagnosed to be suffering mainly from tuberculous adenitis and was treated thereof. The respondent asserted that he contracted the illness while on board the vessel. Notwithstanding the medical treatment he underwent, he was unable to go back to his sea duties for a period of more than one hundred twenty (120) days.
Indeed, the fact that a certification declaring the respondent as fit to work contrary to a prior finding of tuberculosis can be considered as a ploy to circumvent the law intended to defeat the respondent’s right to be compensated for a disability which the law considers as permanent and total.
While [the respondent] may have pulmonary fibrosis [right] lower lung with calcified benign as per PEME, it must be noted that he was declared fit for work x x x. Hence, he was able to board the vessel.
The sickness that complainant now seeks for disability benefit is tuberculosis adenitis and diabetes mellitus.
This was found in the June 15, 2006 findings of Dr. Nicomedes Cruz, the company[–]designated physician.
Again, what is important is that he was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total disability, and not the actual injury itself. Undoubtedly, the illness of the respondent which incapacitated him to work more than 120 days after repatriation is considered as work–related which entitles him to disability benefits.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. the Decision dated December 5, 2008 and the Resolution dated June 3, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA–G.R. SP. No. 102402 are AFFIRMED.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas–Bernabe (now a member of this Court), with Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Myrna Dimaranan–Vidal, concurring; id. at 29–35.
5 Issued by Labor Arbiter Marita V. Padolina; id. at 135–143.
24 Gist of Section 20–B(3) and (6) of the POEA Memorandum Circular No. 09, Series of 2000 re: compensation and benefits for illness and injury.
28 588 Phil. 895 (2008).
32 510 Phil. 332 (2005).
35Camilo A. Esguerra v. United Philippines Lines, Inc., Belships Management (Singapore) Pte Ltd., and/or Fernando T. Lising, G.R. No. 199932, July 3, 2013.
38Seagull Maritime Corp. v. Dee, 548 Phil. 660, 671 (2007).
39Rollo, pp. 140–141. See also CA Decision dated December 5, 2008, rollo, p. 33.
40Kestrel Shipping, Co., Inc. v. Munar, G.R. No. 198501, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 795, 817–818.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.