6/5/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
On September 16, 2009, petitioner filed a complaint against respondents Augustea,
Elburg, and the latter's President, Captain Antonio S. Nombrado (respondents), seeking
to recover disability benefits applicable to officers amounting to US$118,800.00[9]
pursuant to their Collective Bargaining Agreement[10] (CBA), as well as damages, and
attorney's fees, alleging that: (a) his illnesses were occupational diseases as they were
developed, enhanced, and aggravated by the nature of his work, as well as the
environment at the jobsite; and (b) he was unable to return to work within 120 days,
thereby rendering his disability permanent and total.[11]
For their part,[12] respondents maintained that petitioner's Diabetes Mellitus II was
familial or genetic in nature, and thus, not work-connected. Additionally, they averred
that his Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease was a mere complication thereof, and as
such, is also not work-related.[13]
Thereafter, petitioner submitted the medical certificate and evaluation dated January 6,
2010 of his own physician, Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo (Dr. Vicaldo), who opined that his
illnesses - i.e., "Hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease" and "Diabetes
mellitus" - rendered him unfit to work as seaman in any capacity, and were considered
work-related/ aggravated.[14] The said documents were only attached by petitioner in
his reply during the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter (LA).[15]
The LA Ruling
In a Decision[16] dated February 19, 2010, the LA ordered respondents, jointly and
severally, to pay petitioner US$89,100.00 representing total and permanent disability
benefits under the CBA, plus ten percent (10%) thereof as attorney's fees.
The LA ruled that petitioner's condition was undoubtedly contracted during the term of
his contract when he experienced the symptoms of his ailment, considering that he was
declared fit for sea duty in his PEME. The LA also lent more credence to the medical
certificate issued by Dr. Vicaldo, as being more reflective of petitioner's actual
condition. Moreover, while the LA conceded that Diabetes Mellitus II was not a
compensable ailment, since petitioner was likewise diagnosed with Hypertensive
Cardiovascular Disease, an occupational disease, by no less than the companydesignated doctor, his illness remained compensable. Finally, the LA upheld the
presumption of incapacity in favor of petitioner considering that his ailment subsisted
for more than 120 days.[17]
Aggrieved, respondents appealed to the NLRC.[18]
The NLRC Ruling
In a Decision[19] dated September 20, 2010, the NLRC dismissed respondents' appeal
and affirmed the LA's findings. It ruled that while it is true that Diabetes Mellitus II is
not an occupational disease, still, the medical diagnosis of petitioner included a finding
of Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease which is listed under Section 32-A of the
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61320
2/10