6/7/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Therefore the evidence presents more questions than answers as to what caused
Dorotea's throat cancer. Doroteo claims that the engine room was akin to a "gas
chamber"[65] but did not give proof other than a generalized opinion about the risks
present in engine rooms.[66] Philimare claims that the ship was given safety and health
clearances, but submitted a certificate well past the date of Doroteo's employment.[67]
Doroteo claims that he was exposed to noxious chemicals, but fails to substantiate this
claim.[68] Philimare claims that Doroteo was a heavy tobacco and alcohol user, but fails
to link its evidence to the specific cancer involved.[69] Doroteo presents opinions that
allege the possibility of short-term acquisition of cancer.[70] Philimare presents a
physician's diagnosis that the cancer seemed to have already existed more than 3
months prior to the examination.[71]
What these arguments show is that there is no clear nexus between the disease
Doroteo acquired and the working conditions he encountered. Therefore, the disputable
presumption of work-relation cannot be applied, since based on the evidence presented
the Court cannot reasonably conclude that his work as an engineer in the engine room
led to Dorotea's throat cancer.
We are not experts in the field of medicine and disease and have stated as much
previously in Jebsen Maritime, Inc. v. Ravena, as follows:
As a final word and a cautionary clarification, we do not here rule with
absolute precision on the non-causing, non-aggravating, or non-contributing
effect that any or all substances/chemicals and a processed-and-red-meatrich diet may have on ampullary cancer. We are not experts on the matter
and we recognize the considerable degree of uncertainty inherent in the field
of medicine and its study. Our ruling on this petition should, therefore, be
understood strictly in the light of and limited to the surrounding
circumstances of this case.
Stated differently, we declare that Ravena's ampullary cancer is not workrelated, and therefore not compensable, because he failed to prove, by
substantial evidence, its work-relatedness and his compliance with the
parameters that the law had precisely set out in disability benefits claim. For,
while we adhere to the principle of liberality in favour of the seafarer in
construing the POEA-SEC, we cannot allow claims for disability
compensation based on surmises. Liberal construction is never a license to
disregard the evidence on record and to misapply the law.[72]
In as much as we condole with the family of Doroteo, the CA correctly denied his claims
that his throat cancer was work-related or work aggravated, and thus compensable.
However, the CA is equally correct in finding gross negligence on the part of Philimare.
Philimare failed to rebut the allegation made by Doroteo that on several instances, he
was refused medical attention by the ship master.[73] In contention thereto, Philimare
makes a simple assertion that it had allowed him a medical check-up in Denmark, and
repatriated him to the Philippines to be checked by its physician, but did not specifically
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62954
7/13