5/19/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Anent the issuance of the medical certificate[17] in March 2015, the same was issued
for Macahilas's hernia. While Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC lists hernia as an
occupational disease, the same must be proven to be immediately preceded by undue,
or severe strain arising out of and in the course of employment, among other
conditions.[18] The CA held that Macahilas's hernia did not arise out of or in the course
of his employment because his incisional hernia was generated during the
appendectomy. The CA held that Macahilas's conditions of hernia and appendicitis were
not work related. In fact, after repatriation, his appendicitis was immediately assessed
not to be work related for which he was declared fit to work on March 12, 2014, wellwithin the 120-day period.[19]
Unsatisfied with the CA ruling, Macahilas filed the instant petition with this Court. He
reiterates that there is a causal connection between his work and illnesses, particularly,
the diagnosis of appendicitis, fistula and hernia. Macahilas points out that appendicitis,
although not a listed occupational illness under the POEA-SEC, enjoys a disputable
presumption of work-relatedness. To establish the probable work-connection of the
illness, he described his strenuous working conditions and diet on board the vessel and
his tasks as third engineer which he claims caused said illness or at least aggravated a
pre-existing condition. In the same vein, Macahilas's other illness of hernia, which is a
listed occupational illness under the POEA-SEC, was also caused or aggravated by his
work environment. Macahilas stresses that he was asymptomatic before boarding the
vessel and was declared fit to work in his Pre-Employment Medical Examination
(PEME). Having experienced symptoms onboard the vessel, it logically follows that: his
strenuous work on the vessel resulted in or aggravated his conditions. The company
failed to dispute the work-relatedness of his appendicitis by simply relying on its
physician's assessment stating that it was not work-related. BSM is also estopped from
assailing the work-illness connection of his appendicitis and hernia because the
company shouldered his medical costs. Moreover, Macahilas argues that he was unable
to perform his customary work as third engineer for more than 120 or 240 days
because he had been under treatment for at least 418 days. Despite the issuance of
the fit to work assessment, the fact remains that his condition is deemed permanent
and total for his inability to resume his customary work for a period of 120 days.
Finally, Macahilas argues that the CA erred in deleting the award of attorney's fees.
Article 2208 of the Civil Code of the Philippines entitles him to payment of attorney's
fees because he was compelled to litigate his interests.[20]
BSM, in its Comment,[21] argues that Macahilas's conditions are not work-related. First,
he was repatriated for perforated appendicitis only, which was immediately assessed as
not work-related by the company-designated physicians. Appendicitis is not even a
listed occupational illness under the POEA-SEC. BSM emphasizes that it is incumbent on
Macahilas to prove by substantial evidence that his illness was caused or aggravated by
his employment. His arguments are mere insinuations and cannot even be corroborated
by the single and belated assessment of his personal physician. BSM further argues
that the assessment of the company-designated physician is more credible because its
doctors have a more extensive knowledge of Macahilas's medical conditions. The fact
that the company undertook to continue Macahilas's medical treatment after
repatriation does not mean that they admit that his illness is work-related. It is very
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66559
3/10