6/8/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
On June 27, 2002, the LA, after due hearing, rendered a decision dismissing petitioner’s
complaint for lack of merit.
On appeal, the NLRC issued its Resolution dated September 20, 2004 reversing the LA’s
decision and ordering respondent company to pay petitioner his disability compensation
in the amount of US$60,000.00.
Upon the denial of its motion for reconsideration in the NLRC Resolution dated May 24,
2005, respondent company elevated the case to the CA with the following arguments:
PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT
PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO DISABILITY BENEFITS OF
$60,000.00 CONSIDERING THAT:
1) PRIVATE RESPONDENT FAILED TO PROVE BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE THAT HIS ACQUISITION OF VARICOSE VEINS WAS
CAUSED BY HIS PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT WITH PETITIONER
COMPANY.
2) VARICOSE VEINS IS A COMMON DISEASE FOR THOSE WHO
ARE AT LEAST 30 YEARS OLD. IT CAN BE ACQUIRED
GENETICALLY OR CAN BE DUE TO LACK OF EXERCISE. HENCE,
TO
BLAME
THE
PETITIONER
COMPANY
FOR
PRIVATE
RESPONDENT’S VARICOSE VEINS IS MOST UNFAIR AND UNJUST.
3) WHILE PRIVATE RESPONDENT MAY HAVE ACQUIRED A
DISABILITY, HE NEVER LOST HIS EARNING CAPACITY
PERMANENTLY SO AS TO ENTITLE HIM TO DISABILITY BENEFITS
UNDER THE CBA.
Decision of the Court of Appeals
On September 8, 2010, the CA rendered a decision setting aside the NLRC Resolution
and reinstating the LA Decision. The CA explained that since having varicose veins was
not among those listed as occupational diseases under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
626, petitioner bore the burden of proving that such ailment was brought about by his
working conditions. His mere claim that his employment with respondent company was
the cause of his varicose veins hardly constituted substantial evidence to convince a
reasonable mind that his ailment was work-related or the risk of contracting it was
increased by his working conditions with respondent company. There was even no proof
that the disease progressed due to the circumstances of his work which did not fall
under any of the factors that contribute to varicose veins. The mere fact that he had no
other employer except respondent company did not necessarily impute to the latter the
disease acquired by him. Since his claim was not supported by substantial evidence, he
was not entitled to disability benefits.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/26253
2/11