4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly granted sickness allowance, financial assistance and attorney's fees to Rosales.[30] The LA explained that Rosales got ill while on board the vessel and was medically repatriated before the lapse of his eight-month contract.[31] Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued a Decision[32] granting Rosales’ partial appeal and modifying the Decision of the LA as follows: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the complainant's partial appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby MODIFIED. In addition to the Labor Arbiter's award of sickness allowance in her appealed Decision, the respondents are directed to pay, jointly and severally, the complainant the amount of US$60,000.00 representing his permanent total disability compensation, as well as attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award or in their Philippine peso equivalent at the prevailing exchange rate on the actual date of payment. The award of financial assistance is DELETED. SO ORDERED.[33] (Emphasis in the original) The NLRC held that Rosales' Hepatitis infection is an occupational disease which resulted in the seafarer's disability, hence, a work-related illness.[34] The NLRC did not agree with respondents' theory that Rosales acquired the virus after he was repatriated because "Chronic Hepatitis C Infection is a case of Hepatitis C which lasts longer than six (6) months."[35] The NLRC pointed out that since Rosales was diagnosed with "chronic Hepatitis C on December 10, 2013, it would appear that he was already afflicted with the Hepatitis infection as early as June 2013 or six (6) months earlier." He was on board the vessel then and still had eight months before his employment contract expires.[36] The NLRC granted the maximum disability compensation equivalent to Grade 1 disability because Rosales was not able to pursue his usual work for more than 120 days.[37] Respondents moved for a reconsideration[38] of said Decision but was denied by the NLRC through a Resolution dated February 12, 2015. [39] Ruling of the Court of Appeals In a Decision[40] dated April 24, 2017, the CA annulled and set aside the Decision dated December 18, 2014 and Resolution dated February 12, 2015 of the NLRC.[41] By way of financial assistance, respondents were ordered to pay Rosales the amount of US$5,000.00 or its peso equivalent.[42] In setting aside the Decision and the Resolution of the NLRC, the CA found that Rosales failed to present sufficient proof to establish that his Chronic Hepatitis C and fatty liver were work-related.[43] The CA held that the general statements of Rosales about the nature of his work suggest mere possibilities but not the probability required by law for disability compensation. Probability of work-connection must at least be anchored on https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66265 4/14