4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly his health because he will be exposed to factors that can increase the risk of the further recurrence or aggravation of his psoriasis. The fact that the petitioners no longer employed him is the most eloquent proof of his permanent disability.[14] Accordingly, the decretal portion of the LA decision read: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering [petitioners] to pay the [respondent], jointly and severally, the amount of US$75,000.00 representing his total disability benefits, plus attorney’s fees of US$7,500.00, in Philippine currency, at the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of actual payment. All other claims are dismissed. SO ORDERED.[15] Ruling of the NLRC The NLRC differed with the conclusions of the LA and held that there is actually no substantial evidence to prove that the nature of and the stress concomitant to the respondent’s work aggravated his psoriasis. The NLRC observed that the only evidence substantiating the claim that the respondent’s illness is work-related were his bare allegations and the two certifications of Dr. Fugoso who examined him only once. The NLRC noted that Dr. Fugoso even failed to make a clear finding that it was the stress specifically experienced by the respondent while aboard the vessel that aggravated his disease. The NLRC accorded more weight to the certification issued by Dr. Alegre, who was in a better position to assess the respondent after having examined and treated him twice a week for eight (8) months. Thus, the NLRC reversed the LA’s ruling and disposed as follows in its Decision[16] dated July 23, 2009, viz: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another one entered DISMISSING the instant complaint for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[17] Ruling of the CA The CA sustained the LA’s judgment elaborating that inasmuch as the actual cause of psoriasis is unknown and given the probability that its onset was caused by factors found within the respondent’s work environment, the doubt as to whether his illness is work-related should be resolved in his favor. The CA further pointed out that despite the failure of the two doctors to declare the respondent to be fit to return to work, the abrasions on his skin remain repulsive despite treatment for eight (8) months, and the fact that there is no known cure for psoriasis reasonably establish that he can no longer work as seaman; hence, permanently and totally disabled for purposes of compensation under the law. The elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56025 4/13