4/29/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
The respondents denied liability, contending that Villanueva was repatriated not for
medical reasons, but for the completion of his contract. They maintained that
Villanueva disembarked without any known illness and that his present ailment, if any,
is not compensable because it was contracted outside his employment.
In a Decision[4] dated June 30, 2006, Labor Arbiter (LA) Antonio Macam
dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, declaring that Villanueva’s heart ailment
is not compensable as it was not work-related.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) rendered a Decision[5]
dated March 26, 2008, affirming in toto LA Macam’s ruling. Villanueva moved for
reconsideration, but the NLRC denied the motion. He then sought relief from the CA
through a Rule 65 petition for certiorari on the issue of whether the NLRC committed
grave abuse of discretion in ruling that his ailment is not compensable.
In its now challenged Decision, the CA denied the petition, thereby sustaining the
NLRC rulings. It brushed off Villanueva’s submission that his heart ailment, which he
allegedly contracted during his almost twenty (20) years of employment with the
respondents, was aggravated by his work on board the vessel M/S Forestal Gaia. While
the CA acknowledged that under Section 32-A(11) of the 2000 POEA-Standard
Employment Contract, an aggravation would make his claimed heart ailment an
occupational disease, no substantial evidence supported this situation.
Further, the CA stressed that the fact that Villanueva was repatriated for finished
contract and not for medical reasons weakened, if not belied, his claim of illness on
board the vessel. Lastly, the CA found that Villanueva failed to comply with the
mandatory three-day post-employment medical examination under Section 20(B)(3) of
the 2000 POEA-Standard Employment Contract, contrary to his claim that he reported
to the agency upon his repatriation and asked for a medical check-up but was refused.
Villanueva moved for reconsideration of the CA Decision, but the CA denied the
motion. Hence, the present recourse.
Villanueva prays for a reversal of the CA rulings, contending that the appellate court
erred in dismissing his claim for disability benefits on the grounds that: (1) he failed to
present evidence of work-connection for his heart condition; (2) he was repatriated on
account of a finished contract; and (3) he failed to comply with the mandatory threeday post-employment medical examination under the 2000 POEA-Standard
Employment Contract.
Villanueva insists that his heart ailment was work-connected because as early as July
28, 2003, he was no longer fit for sea duties, but he was deployed nonetheless by the
respondents for the obvious reason that they badly needed his services as bosun. He
argues from this premise that his repatriation for finished contract does not militate
against his claim for disability benefits. Further, the CA’s conclusion that he failed to
comply with the mandatory 3-day post-employment medical examination upon
repatriation is erroneous as he stated under oath before the LA that he reported to the
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55999
2/3