6/14/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
A careful review of the findings of the NLRC and the CA shows that petitioner was not
able to meet the required degree of proof that his illness is compensable as it is workrelated. The CA correctly ruled that petitioner was not able to sufficiently establish that
he is entitled to disability benefits for failing to establish that the illness he sustained
was work-related, thus:
The burden of proving the causal link between a claimant's work and the
ailment suffered rests on the claimant's shoulder. The claimant must show,
at least, by substantial evidence that the development of the disease was
brought about largely by the conditions present in the nature of the job.
What the law requires is a reasonable work connection and not a direct
causal relation. Thus, a claimant must submit such proof as would constitute
a reasonable basis for concluding either that the conditions of employment
of the claimant caused the ailment or that such working conditions had
aggravated the risk of contracting that ailment. Incidentally, the 2010
amended POEA-SEC defines work-related illness as any sickness which
resulted from an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A subject to
the conditions found therein x x x.
xxxx
This Court is well aware of the principle that consistent with the purposes
underlying the formulation of the POEA-SEC, its provisions must be applied
fairly, reasonably and liberally in favor of the seafarers, for it is only then
that its beneficent provisions can be fully carried into effect. However, this
catchphrase cannot be taken to sanction the award of disability benefits and
sickness allowance based on flimsy evidence and even in the face of an
unjustified non-compliance with the three-day mandatory reporting
requirement under the POEA-SEC.[45]
A careful perusal of this case shows that petitioner failed to adduce concrete and
sufficient evidence to prove that his illness is work-related. The permanent disability
grading issued by Dr. Tan cannot be considered as an effective assessment for purposes
of the POEA-SEC. It is a well-settled doctrine that if doubt exists between the evidence
presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in
favor of the employee.[46] However, We cannot put the burden on respondents when
the record is bereft of any evidence showing any violation on their part.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED
for lack of merit. The Decision dated July 17, 2017 and the Resolution dated March 21,
2018 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 138401 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J., (Chairperson), Hernando, and Inting, JJ., concur.
Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 13-46.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66786
11/13