1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Because of this, respondent consulted Dr. Ramon Antonio Sarmiento and Dr. Renato P. Runas (Dr. Runas), an orthopedic specialist. Dr. Runas opined that respondent is "permanently unfit to return to duty as a seafarer in whatever capacity with a permanent disability."[12] On February 5, 2013, respondent filed a case against petitioners. He alleged that he is entitled to permanent total disability benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). Petitioners, on the other hand, claimed that gouty arthritis is not a work-related condition. Hence, respondent is not entitled to the disability benefits under the POEASEC.[13] In addition to the certification made by the company-designated physician, petitioners also presented an affidavit[14] from a medical specialist, Dr. Vedasto Lim (Dr. Lim), who opined that, "[b]ased on medical references, [respondent's] condition is caused by too much uric acid in the blood which crystallizes in a person's joints thereby causing inflammation. The known causes of gouty arthritis are one's diet, genetic disposition, or under excretion of urate, the salts of uric acid."[15] He also opined that gouty arthritis is not related to respondent's seafaring duties.[16] On June 13, 2013, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision[17] in favor of respondent holding that respondent's meals while onboard the ship was the source or at least contributed to the occurrence of gouty arthritis, hence, it is a work-related illness.[18] The LA then awarded respondent US$60,000.00 pursuant to Section 32 of the POEASEC, considering that he is unfit to work as a seafarer and 10% of the award as attorney's fees.[19] Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the case to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC reversed[20] the decision of the LA and ruled that petitioners were able to dispute the presumption of compensability with the express declaration of Dr. Lim who certified under oath that respondent's gouty arthritis is not work-related.[21] It was also found by the NLRC that while respondent submitted a generalized averment that his diet onboard the vessel contributed to his illness, the petitioners' submission of a list of ship provisions at the time the respondent was aboard the vessel readily belie his claim of dietary factors affecting his illness. It was shown that the list of provisions consists of a balance between fresh and frozen foods and other ingredients and condiments used in the preparation of the meals.[22] Also, it was held that the procedure under the POEA-SEC for the joint appointment by the parties of a third doctor in case the seafarer's personal doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician's assessment was not followed.[23] Aggrieved, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari[24] with the CA. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65498 2/6