6/14/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
In a Decision[28] dated October 22, 2013, the LA held that it acquired jurisdiction over
the case. MMMI failed to invoke the provision requiring referral to the voluntary
arbitrator which constitutes a waiver to have the claim of Alfredo referred to the
voluntary arbitrators. At this late stage of the proceedings, the parties have submitted
to the jurisdiction of the LA by filing their respective position papers and ignoring the
grievance procedure set forth in the CBA.[29] The LA held that Alfredo's cardiovascular
condition is work-related. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration –
Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) does not require the attending physician to
certify that the illness is work-related as it is the rules that provide for such
determination. Following the conditions for compensability for the illness of cerebro
vascular disease and cardiovascular events under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, the LA
found that Alfredo was subjected to strain and stress at work which could have been
the cause or what could have aggravated his condition.[30] Notably, Alfredo has been in
the service of MMMI for five years starting with a "clean health bill" and eventually
developed the disputed illness during the term of his contract. The LA held that the
work of Alfredo as messman produces strain and stress resulting in the wear and tear
of the body. Further, it is enough that the employment had contributed, even in a small
degree, to the development of the disease. Thus, even if his ailment occurred prior to
his employment, this would still not deprive him of compensation benefits.[31] Finally,
the LA held that Alfredo was unable to return to work for more than 120 days since his
repatriation. This entitles him to payment of permanent and total disability benefits.
Under the CBA, the LA awarded US$90,882.00 and 10% attorney's fees.[32]
Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission
MMMI filed an appeal with the NLRC which was dismissed in a Decision[33] dated
February 28, 2014. The NLRC agrees with the LA that there is no lack of jurisdiction
over the case and that Alfredo's illness is work-related.[34]
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Unsatisfied with the Decision of the NLRC, MMMI filed a Petition for Certiorari[35] under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the CA. In the assailed Decision[36] dated March 31,
2016, the CA granted MMMI's petition and reversed and set aside the Decision of the
labor tribunal.[37] The CA maintains that the NLRC had jurisdiction over the disability
claims and not the voluntary arbitrators. While Alfredo supplied a copy of the ITF
Standard Collective Agreement, the CA held that it does not prove that it is the same
CBA governing the parties. The document presented did not bear the names or
signatures of the authorized signatories of the company. The provision of law on
arbitration for disputes was also not pointed out to the CA. Thus, following the case
EYana v. Philippine Transmarine Carrier, Inc.,[38] the CA held that the CBA is inexistent
for failure to prove the same. The provisions of the POEA-SEC shall govern. In which
case, the NLRC has jurisdiction over the dispute.[39]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66856
3/12