7/7/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
contract.[11] Upon his arrival, respondent did not report for a postemployment medical
examination. They were, thus, surprised when, after nine months from respondent's
repatriation, they learned that a complaint for full disability compensation was lodged
by respondent before the Labor Arbiter.[12]
Petitioners further contended that respondent's illnesses are not occupational diseases
and not work-related; respondent, therefore, is not entitled to disability compensation.
[13]
The Labor Arbiter Ruling
Labor Arbiter Lutricia F Quitevis-Alconcel (Labor Arbiter) rendered the May 7, 2010
Decision[14] dismissing respondent's complaint for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter
ratiocinated that respondent was repatriated not because of any medical condition but
due to a finished contract; and respondent tailed to prove that his illnesses were workrelated. The Labor Arbiter, thus, disposed the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered
DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit.
All other claims herein sought and prayed for are hereby denied for lack of
legal and factual bases.
SO ORDERED.[15]
Undaunted, respondent filed an appeal to the NLRC.
The NLRC Ruling
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. In its Decision[16]
promulgated on March 31, 2011, the NLRC likewise ruled that respondent's repatriation
is not due to his alleged medical condition but because of a finished contract.
Respondent likewise failed to prove that his illnesses were work-related and that they
came about during the term of his employment. The fallo of the NLRC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit
The Decision of May 7, 2010 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[17]
Respondent then moved for reconsideration, it was, however, denied. Hence,
respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.
The CA Ruling
In the assailed Decision[18] promulgated on January 31, 2013, the CA reversed the
NLRC's Decision, the decretal portion of which reads:
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66977
2/14