5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly JULY 2010, GRAVELY ERRS [sic] WHEN IT ELECTED TO SET ASIDE AND/OR COMPLETELY IGNORE SUCH FACTUAL AND LEGAL FINDINGS ON THE PART OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION) AND WHEN IT THEREAFTER RULED TO REVERSE AND TO SET ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION) ORDERING THE DISMISSAL OF THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED LABOR COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF MERIT.[27] Petitioners’ Arguments Praying that the assailed CA dispositions be set aside and that a pronouncement be made dismissing respondent’s labor complaint, petitioners maintain in their Petition and Reply[28] that contrary to the CA’s declarations, respondent’s illness is not workrelated; that respondent’s labor complaint was prematurely filed, while he was still undergoing treatment for his illness and before the company-designated physician/s could complete treatment and make a definite assessment of his condition; that they may not be blamed for the company-designated physician’s failure to arrive at a final assessment of respondent’s condition; that it has not been shown that respondent’s treatment lasted for the statutory duration of 240 days, since he filed his labor complaint even before the said maximum 240-day treatment period could be reached and a definite assessment of his condition could be made; and that overall, respondent has not shown by substantial evidence that he is entitled to his claims. Respondent’s Arguments In his Comment,[29] respondent argues that the issues raised in the Petition are factual in nature and no question of law is involved; that his illness is compensable as it is work-connected and constitutes an occupational disease under the POEA Contract Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels; that Dr. Cruz already knew of the gravity and serious nature of his condition, yet he refused to make the required definite assessment of his fitness or disability; and that the award of attorney’s fees was proper. Our Ruling The Court denies the Petition. Compensability Regarding the issue of compensability, it has been the Court’s consistent ruling that in disability compensation, “it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one’s earning capacity.”[30] Moreover, “the list of illnesses/diseases in Section 32-A[31] does not preclude other illnesses/diseases not so listed from being compensable. The POEA-SEC cannot be presumed to contain all the possible injuries that render a seafarer unfit for further sea duties.”[32] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56669 8/14