5/19/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS AND
REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW IN AWARDING FULL AND PERMANENT
DISABILITY BENEFITS, DISREGARDING THE MEDICAL FINDINGS OF THE
COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN AND AWARDING FULL DISABILITY
COMPENSATION UNDER THE POEA CONTRACT AND THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA).
In support of their petition, OSG and Pacific Ocean Manning argue, in summary, that
Martinez failed to present substantial evidence that there is a causal connection
between the nature of his employment and his illness, or that the risk of contracting
the illness was increased by his working conditions. On the contrary, OSG and Pacific
Ocean Manning posit that the CA should have given evidentiary weight to the Affidavit
of Messman Daet regarding the safe and healthful working condition of Martinez while
on board the vessel and of the fact that the company-designated physicians found
Martinez' illness as not work-related. It is also their position that Martinez has no cause
of action against them at the time of the filing of his complaint. OSG and Pacific Ocean
Manning seek the attention of the Court to the fact that Martinez immediately filed his
labor complaint on 17 November 2014 without consulting first his private doctor and
securing a medical certificate that he is totally and permanently disabled.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is not meritorious.
Pursuant to Section 20 (A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC,[13] the employer is liable for
disability benefits when the seafarer suffers from a work-related injury or illness during
the term of his contract.
In this case, OSG and Pacific Ocean Manning argued that Martinez' illness, which is not
listed as a disability under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC nor listed as an occupational
disease under Section 32-A of the same rule, is not work-related since there is no
causal connection between the nature of his employment and his illness. This, however,
is a factual issue that is generally not reviewable in a petition under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court.[14]
A petition for review is limited to questions of law. The Court does not re-examine
conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute the findings
of fact of the NLRC, an administrative body that has expertise in its specialized field.
Factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on the
Court.[15] Nonetheless, OSG and Pacific Ocean Manning present no compelling reason
for the Court to deviate from this general rule.
It is, however, settled in this jurisdiction that this Court may examine the CA's Decision
from the prism of whether the latter had correctly determined the presence or absence
of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC's Decision.[16] In this case, the Court finds no
reversible error on the part of the CA when it declared that the NLRC did not commit
grave abuse of discretion in affirming the ruling of the LA that Martinez' illness is workrelated and compensable.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66703
4/9