5/28/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
[6] Id. at 93.
[7] See Decision dated March 31, 2009, id. at 28-36; penned by Commissioner Gregorio
O. Bilog III and concurred in by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. Presiding
Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier took no part.
The NLRC disagreed with the LA’s application of the provisions of the 1996 POEA SEC
and, instead, held that it is the 2000 POEA SEC that is controlling in this case as the
employment contract was executed between petitioners and Guillermo on September
20, 2004 and Guillermo’s deployment was on October 22, 2004. While the 1996 POEA
SEC covers all injuries or illnesses occurring during the term of the contract and there
need not be a showing that the injury or illness is work-related, the 2000 POEA SEC
requires that the death, injury or illness occurring during the term of the contract must
be work-related.
Citing Gau Sheng Phils., Inc. v. Joaquin (481 Phil. 222, 234 [2004]), the NLRC ruled that
for death compensation benefits to be awarded, there must be substantial evidence
showing that:
a) The cause of death was reasonably connected with the work of the
deceased; or
b) The sickness for which he died is an accepted occupational disease; or
c) His working conditions increased the risk of contracting the disease for
which he died.
In this case, the CA found that colon cancer is not included in the list of occupational
diseases under Sec. 32-A of the 2000 POEA SEC. Private respondent must, therefore,
show a reasonable connection between the work of her deceased husband and the
cause of his death or show that the risk of contracting colon cancer is increased by the
seaman’s working conditions. Private respondent was unable to prove any of these.
Thus, as Guillermo’s death was not work-related, the CA ruled that the hospital and
medical expenses incurred by Guillermo after May 22, 2005 (the date when the
company-designated physician proclaimed that Guillermo’s illness is not work-related)
could not be passed on to petitioners. Likewise, the award of moral and exemplary
damages and attorney’ fees was not proper.
[8] See Motion for Reconsideration, id. at 37-42.
[9] Id. at 43-44; penned by Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III and concurred in by
Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez and Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr.
[10] Id. at 3-6.
[11] Id. at 9-27.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56563
8/12