6/5/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Petitioners submit the following issues for resolution:
1. Whether x x x the Court of Appeals' decision in awarding private
respondent US$60,000.00 as disability benefits is in accord with law or
the applicable decisions of this Honorable Court despite the fact that
private respondent disembarked from the vessel due to a finished
contract and the alleged cause of the seafarer's disability is not workrelated.
2. Whether x x x the Court of Appeals' decision in awarding private
respondent sickness allowance, medical reimbursement and attorney's
fees is in accord with law or the applicable decisions of this Honorable
Court considering that private respondent has provided no basis for
such claims.
3. Whether x x x the Court of Appeals' decision is in accord with law or
the applicable decisions of this Honorable Court considering that the
findings of fact and legal conclusions both [sic] the Labor Arbiter and
the NLRC are completely different from its questioned Decision and
Resolution.[44]
Petitioners' Arguments
Praying that the assailed CA pronouncements be set aside and that a new judgment be
rendered dismissing NLRC NCR Case No. OFW (M)-07-10662-09, petitioners insist in
their Petition and Reply[45] that respondent has no right to any disability benefits since
his employment contract expired before he contracted his illness; that his illness is not
work-connected; that hypertensive cardiovascular disease is not compensable as it is
not a work-connected illness under the POEA SEC; that the company-designated
physician already made a prior categorical assessment, contained in a March 22, 2009
Medical Report, that respondent's illness was not work-related and thus not
compensable; that the company-designated physician's assessment - not that of
respondent's appointed doctor, Dr. Vicaldo's - should be given credence; and that
resultantly, the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding disability benefits,
damages, and attorney's fees to respondent.
Respondent's Arguments
In his Comment,[46] respondent counters that the assailed Decision of the appellate
court is duly supported by the evidence adduced; that his condition -hypertensive
cardiovascular disease or coronary artery disease - was contracted during his
employment with petitioners; that his work contributed to the development of his
condition and deterioration of his health; that cardiovascular disease is listed as a
compensable illness under the POEA SEC; that he is entitled to permanent and total
disability benefits as he has been unable to work even up to the present as a result of
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61296
12/20