6/7/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
1. Permanent disability benefits in the sum of US$ 110,000.00 in
accordance with the CBA;
2. Moral and exemplary damages in the sum of US$3,000.00; and
3. Attorney's fees in the sum equivalent to 10% of the judgment award.
All other claims are hereby dismissed for utter lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[6]
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed with modification the ruling of the Labor Arbiter in a
Decision dated 17 August 2010 deleting the award of moral and exemplary damages.
The fallo of the NLRC Decision reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding
the award of full disability benefits, sickness allowance and attorney's fees
proper while damages are hereby ordered deleted from the monetary award.
Accordingly, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated January 10, 2010 is
hereby MODIFIED. All other dispositions not otherwise modified STANDS.
SO ORDERED."[7]
For lack of merit, the Motion for Reconsideration of the respondents was denied by the
NLRC in a Resolution dated 14 October 2010.
Ascribing grave abuse of discretion, respondents elevated the adverse NLRC ruling to
the Court of Appeals.
On 4 September 2012, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision[8] reversing the ruling
of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. The appellate court gave credence to the
findings of the company accredited physician that the illness of the petitioner was
congenital in nature and could not be caused by his working condition in any way.
According to the Court of Appeals, the most common cause of aortic stenosis in
younger people is a congenital bicuspid valve, in which the aortic valve consists only of
two "cusps" (i.e., flaps) instead of the normal three. In fine, the appellate court held
that "[petitioner] failed to establish that his medical condition was work related or that
it contributed or exposed him to the risk of contracting the same in the course of his
employment."
Similarly ill-fated was petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the
appellate court in a Resolution9 dated 13 March 2013.
The Issue
Unflinching, petitioner is now before this Court via this instant Petition for Review on
Certiorari assailing the Courts of Appeals' Decision and Resolution on the following
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61708
3/9