4/9/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Indisputably, cardiovascular diseases, which, as herein above-stated, include
atherosclerotic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, cardiac arrhythmia, are listed
as compensable occupational diseases under Sec. 32-A Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) Memorandum Circular No. 09, S-2000,
hence, no further proof of causal relation between the disease and
claimant’s work is necessary.[19] (Citation omitted)
The CA found the evidence submitted by Taok sufficient to establish a causal connection
between his illness and his work. According to the CA, it is not necessary that Taok
prove with certainty that it was his work that caused his illness. As he displayed no
signs of having any cardiovascular disease prior to being employed, it would suffice that
there was evidence that he manifested the symptoms of his medical condition during
his employment to show the probability of a causal relationship. The petitioners failed
to demonstrate that Taok’s consumption of sixty (60) cigarette sticks per day for twenty
(20) years and regular alcohol intake were the proximate causes. Below are the
relevant portions of the CA’s decision:
Contrary to private respondents’ claim, [Taok’s] strenuous work is the
proximate cause of his hypertensive cardiovascular disease. Private
respondents’ assertion that subject illness was developed by [Taok’s]
consumption of sixty (60) sticks of cigarettes a day for 20 years and
drinking of alcohol deserves scant consideration. On the contrary, Dr. Johann
Brocker of Prince Rupert Internal Medicine indicated in his medical findings
that [Taok] is a non-smoker and had no recent excessive alcohol intake.
Secondly, private respondents’ designated physician declared [Taok] ill and
unfit in their medical progress report on 7 August [2006] and 18 September
2006, respectively, that they recommended that [Taok] should continue with
his medications and should be monitored weekly.[20] (Citation omitted)
Petitioners moved for reconsideration but this was denied by the CA in a Resolution[21]
dated September 8, 2010.
Before this Court, petitioners are principally contending that the CA has no basis in
awarding Taok with total and permanent disability benefits and sickness wages. It is the
company-designated physician who should determine the disability grading or fitness to
work of seafarers and such determination was yet to be made at the time Taok filed his
complaint.
Petitioners claim that the CA’s issuance of a writ of certiorari to reverse and set aside
the NLRC’s Resolutions dated November 19, 2007 and March 18, 2008 is erroneous as:
(a) Taok’s illnesses are not compensable; (b) assuming the contrary, Taok failed to
prove that it was his working conditions that caused his ailments or that they
aggravated the risk of contracting them; (c) contrary to Taok’s claim that it was his
duties as cook that engendered his medical condition, his excessive smoking for a
considerable period of time and regular alcohol intake are the primary causes thereof;
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55036
7/15