1999), he experienced painful urination which the company-designated
physician suspected to be urinary tract infection and for which he was given a
prescription. While aboard Probo Koala, the deceased allegedly occasionally
suffered from painful urination, sometimes exhibiting traces of blood in his
urine, but the pain would subside after taking the prescribed medication.
After the completion of his contract, the deceased sought a second
opinion on his condition, this time from a private specialist in urologysurgery. It was then discovered that he was suffering from urinary bladder
cancer. On 6 January 2000, he underwent a partial cystectomy for the removal
of the malignant mass. The private physician assured him that with follow-up
treatment and management, he would be subsequently cured and be fit to
work. About three months after the surgery, the deceased sought another
deployment with petitioner. He was, however, refused employment because he
was declared medically unfit when the company-designated physician noted his
ailment and recent surgery.
By 9 August 2000, the deceaseds condition worsened with the cancer
reaching the advanced stage and spreading through his chest and abdomen. He
died on 5 March 2001, leaving behind a wife and two minor children. The cause
of death was listed as cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to urinary bladder
cancer with metastasis.[4]
The deceaseds heirs, respondents herein, filed a complaint with the Labor
Arbiter for death and compensation benefits under the POEA Standard
Employment Contract (Standard Contract)[5] and/or NIS CBA and for attorneys
fees. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. According to
the Labor Arbiter, the deceaseds death could not be compensated for because
the same did not occur during the term of his employment contract. Likewise, it
was not shown that his illness was work-related.[6] On appeal, the NLRC
affirmed the Labor Arbiters Decision dated 30 December 2003.[7] A subsequent
motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC.[8]
The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals via an original action for
certiorari, with the heirs imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the