4/29/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
The petitioners opposed the work-relation argument of respondent in light of a contrary finding made by the
company-designated oncologist that NPC was caused by genetic factors; and that full and expensive medical
assistance had been generously extended, on top of the medical attention provided to respondent.
The Labor Arbiter’s Decision
On May 7, 2008, the LA rendered a decision awarding respondent the sum of US$60,000.00 as total disability
benefits, plus 10% thereof as attorney’s fees. It ruled that there existed a causal relationship between
respondent’s cancer and his diet on board the vessel; and that the petitioners failed to overcome the
presumption of the work-relatedness of respondent’s disease. The LA disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, all foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding complainant
ELENO A. BABOL to have suffered work-related illness resulting to [sic] his total permanent
disability and thus ordering respondents ABOITIZ JEBSENS MARITIME, INC., HAPAG-LLOYD
AKTIENGESELL SCHAFT and ESTANISLAO SANTIAGO to jointly and severally pay him the
amount of US$60,000.00 plus Ten Percent (10%) thereof as Attorney’s Fees or in the total amount
of US$66,000.00 or its Philippine Peso equivalent at the time of actual payment.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[5]
The NLRC Ruling
On appeal, the NLRC, in its October 27, 2009 Decision, affirmed the LA ruling but deleted the award for
attorney’s fees. It held that the petitioners failed to substantially disprove the disputable presumption of workrelation under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEASEC). It further noted that respondent, being a seafarer, had no choice but to eat the food prepared by the
kitchen staff and correlatively his diet was limited to salt-cured foods such as salted fish, dried meat, salted
egg, frozen meat, and other preserved goods, all of which allegedly increased the risk of contracting NPC. The
dispositive portion of its decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award
of attorney’s fees is DELETED.
SO ORDERED.[6]
Both parties moved for reconsideration. On March 26, 2010, the NLRC issued a resolution[7] denying it.
Via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed before the CA, the petitioners argued that
the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling for respondent.
The CA’s Decision
On May 15, 2012, the CA dismissed the petition. Echoing the findings of the NLRC and the LA, it held that the
nature and circumstances of respondent's work caused his illness or at least aggravated any pre-existing
condition he might have, hence compensable.[8] It gave weight to the findings of the NLRC and the LA that the
risk factors as relayed by the company-designated physician were attendant in respondent’s case, such as: (1)
his diet while on board which was high in salt-cured fish and preserved foods; (2) and his exposure to toxic
materials, smoke, and diesel fumes while working for the petitioners in various capacities for almost two
decades. Having found a link between respondent’s working conditions and the disease, it concluded that the
claims deserved merit in accordance with this Court’s ruling in Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. National
Labor Relations Commission[9] where it was recognized as sufficient, in order to successfully claim the benefits
under the contract, that the work has been proven as contributory, even in a small degree, to the development
of a worker's disease.
Unfazed with the adverse ruling, the petitioners moved for reconsideration. In its resolution, dated October 8,
2012, the CA denied the said motion for reconsideration.
Hence, this petition.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56454
2/8