The CA Decision
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining
order[14] before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 105625. The CA, in its
decision[15] of December 15, 2008, denied the petition for lack of merit.
The CA held that under the provisions of the POEA Standard Employment
Contract (POEA-SEC), it is enough that the work has contributed, even in a small
degree, to the development of the worker’s disease. The CA further held that the
Courts are not bound by the assessment of the company-designated physician.
According to the CA, Dr. Ong-Salvador’s pronouncement that the respondent is
“fit to resume sea duties” was inconsistent with the fact that the respondent had
previously undergone chemotherapy, and needed to undergo periodic check-ups.
The CA affirmed the award of attorney’s fees because Article 2208 of the
Civil Code allows the recovery of attorney’s fees in actions for indemnity under
the workman’s compensation and employer liability laws.
The petitioners moved to reconsider this decision, but the CA denied their
motion in its resolution of January 28, 2009.[16]
The Petition
In the present petition, the petitioners argue that the CA erred in holding the
petitioners liable for US$60,000.00 in total and permanent disability benefits
despite the company-designated physician’s finding that the respondent’s illness
was not work-related. They assert that under the 2000 POEA-SEC, only workrelated injury or illness is compensable. They likewise maintain that the companydesignated physician’s finding that the respondent’s illness was not work-related
should be given credence. Aside from the fact that lymphoma is not listed as an
occupational disease under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, the respondent’s work
could not have exposed him to carcinogenic fumes or chemicals that cause cancer
because his duties merely involved housekeeping and cleaning.
The Respondent’s Position