5/19/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
related and contracted during the term of his employment to make his condition
compensable.
We resolve.
Preliminarily, it must be noted that at the core of the controversy in this petition are
factual questions which, generally, are outside the Court's discretionary appellate
jurisdiction under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[18] In view, however, of the divergent
factual findings of the RCMB and the CA, the Court is constrained to re-examine the
evidence on record for a judicious resolution of the controversy presented in this case.
[19]
After a thorough re-evaluation of the arguments of both parties and the records of this
case, the Court finds no merit in this petition.
The validity of petitioner's claim for total and permanent disability benefits against
respondents hinges mainly on whether or not his illnesses are work-related and
suffered during the term of his contract. Under Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEAStandard Employment Contract (SEC), for an injury or illness to be compensable, two
elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the workrelated injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's
employment contract.
The 2010 POEA-SEC defines a work-related illness as "any sickness as a result of an
occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this Contract with the conditions set
therein satisfied."[20] As for illnesses not listed as an occupational disease, they may
also be compensable, as they are disputably presumed to be work-related, if the
seafarer is able to prove the correlation of his illness to the nature of his work and the
conditions for compensability are satisfied.[21]
The illness being listed as an occupational disease under said provision of the POEASEC, however, does not mean automatic compensability.[22] The first paragraph of
Section 32-A expressly states that such listed occupational diseases and the resulting
disability or death must satisfy all of the following general conditions to be
compensable: (1) the seafarer's work must involve risks described therein; (2) the
disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks; (3)
the disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors
necessary to contract it; and (4) there was no notorious negligence on the part of the
seafarer.
In addition to the above-enumerated general requirements under the first paragraph of
Section 32-A, conditions specific to a particular occupational disease must be attendant
for it to be compensable. Say in the case of cardiovascular diseases, Section 32-A,
paragraph 2(11) provides that the same shall be considered as occupational when
contracted under working conditions involving the risks described as follows:
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66454
4/12