5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In a Resolution[21] dated November 29, 2007, the NLRC reversed the decision of the LA as it found no factual and legal basis to support the respondent’s allegation that the tuberculous adenitis and diabetes mellitus were contracted while on board the vessel in order for it to be considered as compensable; that tuberculous adenitis and diabetes mellitus “takes quite a number of years to develop and cannot just be acquired in so short a time as the tour of duty of the [respondent], which started on December 1, 2005 up to February 2, 2006 only[; n]or has there been evidence presented that the working conditions on board the vessel contributed to or exacerbated the physical condition of the [respondent].”[22] The NLRC further criticized the failure of the respondent to seek the opinion of another doctor to contest the medical findings of the company-designated physician. Thus, it puts to question how the LA arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners failed to substantiate their averments. Lastly, the NLRC stressed that what matter more is the schedule of disability rather than the number of days the seafarer is unable to perform his customary work.[23] Hence, the NLRC ordered the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. Decision of the CA Undaunted, the respondent sought relief to the CA via petition for certiorari. The CA granted the petition and reversed the resolution of the NLRC. According to the CA, it is the incapacity of a seafarer to work resulting in the impairment of his earning capacity which is compensated and not the injury or illness itself. The CA further stated that when a seafarer is medically repatriated and assessed as incapable to regularly perform his duties for a period beyond 120 days, he shall be deemed to have suffered from a permanent disability which entitles him to a corresponding compensation.[24] With this, the CA also emphasized that where the claimant’s ailment occurred during and in the course of employment, the same is presumed as the cause of the ailment. [25] Sadly, the petitioners failed to refute the same. It is not required that the employment was the sole factor for the development of the ailment as it is enough that the said employment contributed to it “even in a small measure.”[26] Considering further that the respondent’s prime duties included the cleaning and maintenance of the deck or superstructure of the ship, which constantly exposed him to different types of hazardous chemicals like paints, thinners and other forms of agents and harmful substances, the same may have invariably contributed to the aggravation of his illness. Hence, the CA found the LA decision to be more in accord with law and jurisprudence in granting the permanent total disability benefits, as prayed for by the respondent. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration.[27] Citing the case of Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., et al.,[28] the petitioners contended that the inability to work for a period of 120 days to a maximum of 240 days is only a temporary total disability which becomes “permanent” only (a) when so declared by the company physician within the periods he is allowed to do so, or (b) upon expiration of the 240-day period without a declaration of either the fitness to work or existence of “permanent” total disability. Here, the respondent was declared “fit to work” by the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56832 4/10