explained that the respondent’s work need not be the main cause of his illness; it is
enough that his employment had contributed even in a small degree to the
development of the disease.
LA Padolina likewise held that each person has his own physical tolerance.
That it was only the respondent who had contracted lymphoma among the
petitioners’ workers did not remove the fact that his illness was aggravated by his
employment. She also ruled that the respondent was not fit to work as a seafarer
because he had undergone chemotherapy.[11]
The labor arbiter likewise awarded attorney’s fees in respondent’s favor, as
he was forced to litigate to protect his rights.
The NLRC Ruling
The NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision in toto in its resolution dated
April 30, 2008.[12] The NLRC held that the respondent is not fit to work as a
seafarer because he is suffering from recurrent lymphoma - a sickness that required
him undergochemotherapy. The NLRC explained that the respondent is in a state
of permanent total disability because he can no longer earn wages in the same kind
of work, or work of similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to
perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment could
do.
The NLRC ruled that there was a reasonable connection between the nature
of the respondent’s work as assistant housekeeping manager and the development
of his illness. The NLRC explained that the respondent had passed every PEME
before signing the six employment contracts with the petitioner from 2000 to 2005,
and was declared “fit to work” each time. It was only after the respondent was
exposed to an extreme working environment in the petitioners’ vessel that he
developed his sickness. At any rate, the law merely requires a reasonable work
connection, and not a direct causal connection for a disability to be compensable.
The petitioners moved to reconsider this resolution, but the NLRC denied
their motion in its resolution of July 31, 2008.[13]