6/5/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
In a Decision[17] dated July 31, 2007, the Labor Arbiter ruled that when an ailment is
not listed as an occupational disease under the POEA-SEC or the conditions set forth
therein for compensability have not been met, the ailment is nevertheless disputably
presumed as work-related. Hence, it was not for Pastor to prove that his illness is workrelated; rather, it behooved upon the petitioners to rebut such presumption. The Labor
Arbiter, however, found that petitioners failed to discharge their burden and, therefore,
held that Pastor's illness is work-related and compensable. Anent the nature of Pastor's
disability, the Labor Arbiter considered the same as permanent and total per the
medical certificate issued by the Seamen's Hospital. Thus:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises being considered, judgment is
hereby rendered ordering the [petitioners] to pay [Pastor] the sum of
US$78,750.00 as disability benefits, plus ten percent (10%) thereof as and
for attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED.[18]
Petitioners appealed to the NLRC.
Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission
In its Resolution[19] of April 23, 2008, the NLRC sustained the Labor Arbiter's finding
that Pastor's ailment is work-related and compensable as, in fact, its proximate cause
was the accident he figured in while on duty and his duties as messman show direct
connection with his illness. It likewise gave weight and credence to the medical
certificate issued by the Seamen's Hospital attesting to Pastor's disability as permanent
since it observed that at the time the said certificate was issued, Pastor had actually
been incapable of working for more than 120 days already. Moreover, aside from the
fact that the findings contained in the said certificate appeared to be consistent with
the findings and prognosis of the company-designated physician, it can be gleaned
therefrom that Pastor was already under the care of the certifying doctor for a
considerable length of time and his certification was not based on a mere one-time
consultation. Ultimately, the NLRC ruled, viz:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we deny the appeal and AFFIRM the
decision of the Labor Arbiter.
SO ORDERED.[20]
Petitioners moved for reconsideration,[21] but the same was denied in the NLRC
Resolution[22] dated May 30, 2008.
Hence, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari[23] before the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60848
3/12