SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 253756, May 12, 2021
RESTY S. CAAMPUED, Petitioner, v. NEXT WAVE MARITIME MANAGEMENT, INC., MTM SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD., AND ARNOLD MARQUEZ, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
DEGENERATIVE DISK, T12-L1, Ll-L2, L4-L5 and 15-sIThe MRI, on the other hand, revealed the following impressions:10chanrobleslawlibrary
MILD COMPRESSION DEFORMITY, L2
HYPERTROPHIC OSSEOUS CHANGES
GRADE ONE ANTEROLISTHESIS, L5 OVER S1 WITH SPONDYLOSIS
Left paravertebral soft tissue mass, L3-L4 with epidural extension, marrow infiltration and severe canal stenosis. This may present an infectious versus malignant process. Recommend biopsy.After a biopsy of his left paravertebral soft tissue mass, it was concluded that petitioner had chronic granulomatous inflammation with necrosis or spinal tuberculosis. According to Dr. Alegre, spinal tuberculosis is a disease which originates from primary complex or tuberculosis that had been acquired from childhood, which develops over time. Thus, spinal tuberculosis is not work-related. Such finding and conclusion was reflected in the Medical Report dated August 4, 2016.11
Mild compression deformity, L3
Grade 1 spondylolisthesis, L4 over L5
Desiccated disks, L3-L4 and L4-L5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding Complainant entitled to total and permanent disability benefits of US$60,000[.00] and sickness allowance of $3,000[.00], plus moral and exemplary damages of P250,000.[00] each and attorney's fees equal to 10% of the total judgment awards. Correspondingly, all herein Respondents are made jointly and severally liable to pay the same to the Complainant.Labor Arbiter Que, Jr. noted the undisputed fact that prior to embarking respondents' vessel, petitioner did not show any signs of spinal tuberculosis. He only showed signs after he pulled the piston lining. His PEME even showed that he had no limitations or restrictions on fitness or any back injury. It can be deduced, then, that the cause of petitioner's illness was his strenuous work on board respondents' vessel. In any event, the touchstone of liability is not certainty, but mere possibility of work-relation.19
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.18chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, [premises] considered, respondents' Appeal is GRANTED in PART. The Decision of Labor Arbiter Thomas T. Que, Jr. dated September 5, 2017 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint for permanent disability compensation is DISMISSED for lack of merit. However, respondents Next Wave Maritime Management and/or Arnold Marquez and/or MTM Ship Management are ordered to pay complainant, jointly and severally, the Philippine Peso equivalent at the time of payment of US$1,298.00 by way of sickness wages.chanroblesvirtualawlibraryThe NLRC held that petitioner failed to present any substantial evidence to establish his claim that he sustained his spinal injuries because of his work aboard respondents' vessel. There was even no record that he indeed suffered back pain after pulling the piston lining of the ship's generator. Neither the attending physician in Africa nor the company-designated physician said anything about the alleged incident involving the piston lining. More, per the clinical discharge summary issued by St. Luke's Medical Center, petitioner had history of low back pain as early as January 2016. Thus, petitioner's back pain was a pre-existing condition. For concealing this condition, petitioner is disqualified for any compensation under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).23
SO ORDERED.22chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
At present, Seaman Caampued is still having persistent pain on the lower back. Pain is associated with numbness at the lateral aspect of the left leg which worsens affecting the thigh, gluteal area and lower back during prolonged standing and walking. Pain is very intense in the morning and has a very hard time standing up.Verily, as between the unsubstantiated certification on petitioner's so called undisclosed history of a pre-existing illness cannot prevail over the ample evidence on record that: a) petitioner was in fact found to be fit to work and had no impediment or restrictions in his actions due to joint or muscle pain in any part of his body when he boarded respondents' vessel; b) it was only after the incident on board involving the piston lining that he started to exhibit limited trunk motion due to pain; and c) Dr. Runas noted that when he examined petitioner after repatriation, the latter still had persistent pain on the lower back and had difficulty in his movements.
On physical examination, forward and backward trunk motion is limited because of pain. There is paraspinal muscle tenderness and spasm. No gibbus noted. SLR is equivocal on the right. Tight hamstring muscle is also noted on the [sic] both lower extremities. He has difficulty standing from a sitting position. He is ambulatory with a slight limp and walks with a slow pace.46chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITSOn compensable diseases, the 2010 POEA-SEC states:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:cralawlawlibrary
- The employer shall continue to pay the seafarer his wages during the time he is on board the ship;
- If the injury or illness requires medical and/or dental treatment in a foreign port, the employer shall be liable for the full cost of such medical, serious dental, surgical and hospital treatment as well as board and lodging until the seafarer is declared fit to work or to be repatriated. However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the employer until such time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the company-designated physician.
- In addition to the above obligation of the employer to provide medical attention, the seafarer shall also receive sickness allowance from his employer in an amount equivalent to his basic wage computed from the time he signed off until he is declared fit to work or the degree of disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician. The period within which the seafarer shall be entitled to his sickness allowance shall not exceed 120 days. Payment of the sickness allowance shall be made on a regular basis, but not less than once a month.
x x x
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. In the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the company-designated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed to by the seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. (Emphasis supplied)
SECTION 32 A. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASESTo reiterate, prior to assuming his duties as Engine Fitter aboard respondents' vessel in March 2016, petitioner was declared fit to work after PEME with the company-designated physician. Petitioner showed no signs of any spinal injuries before he boarded the vessel. His back pain and limited lumbar movement started only after he forcefully pulled the piston lining of the ship's generator. And these symptoms persisted way beyond the time he got medically repatriated. Considering that petitioner was asymptomatic prior to boarding and that his symptoms began to manifest only after that pm1icular incident on board and persisted way beyond his Medical repatriation, it is reasonable to claim a causal relationship between petitioner's illness and his work as Engine Fitter of respondents' vessel. In Magat v. Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc.47 the Court held that Magat was entitled to permanent disability benefits when after passing his PEME, he developed heart ailment, thus:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied:cralawlawlibrary
- The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein;
- The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks;
- The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; and
- There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.
The above findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC clearly show how petitioner acquired or developed his illness during the term of his contract. The CA reversed the NLRC decision by ruling that nothing in the records, documentation or medical report, show that petitioner contracted his illness aboard M/T North Star, however, despite such, the fact that petitioner was able to pass his PEME without any finding that he had a preexisting heart ailment before boarding the vessel and later on finding, after the tem1ination of his contract that he has acquired the said heart ailment, one can conclude that such illness developed while he was on board the same vessel. The work assigned to the petitioner (i.e., painting the ship's pump room), poor diet, advanced age, the stressful nature of his employment, and repeated hiring of his services by respondents, would all lead to the conclusion that the work of petitioner as Able Seaman caused or contributed even to a small degree to the development or aggravation of complainant's heart disease. In determining whether a disease is compensable, it is enough that there exists a reasonable work connection. It is sufficient that the hypothesis on which the workmen's claim is based is probable since probability, not certainty is the touchstone.Further, we note the apt observation of Labor Arbiter Que, Jr., which respondents have not refuted, that aside from spinal tuberculosis, petitioner also suffers from multiple spinal injuries, more particularly, degenerative disc and spondylolisthesis. Petitioner's degenerative disc is supported by petitioner's initial x-ray which showed the following impressions:48chanrobleslawlibrary
Narrowed disk spaces are appreciated at T12-L1, L1-L2 and L4-L5 as well as L5-S1.Thus, the first medical report issued by Dr. Alegre clearly showed the following assessment: Degenerative Disc Disease, T12 to S1 and Compression Deformity, L2.49]
Anterior wedging deformity is observed at L2.
x x x
There is break / irregularity in the posterior element of L5. x x x
Hypertrophic changes are exhibited in the lumbar vertebrae.
x x x
There is anterior displacement of L5 over S1 even on flexion and extension views.
x x x
IMPRESSION
DEGENERATIVE DISK, T12-L1, L1-L2, L4-L5 and 15-S1
MILD COMPRESSION DEFORMITY, L2
HYPERTROPHIC OSSEOUS CHANGES
GRADE ONE ANTEROLISTHESIS, L5 OVER S1 WITH SPONDYLOLYSIS
Left paravertebral soft tissue mass, L3-L4 with epidural extension, marrow infiltration and severe canal stenosis. This may represent an infectious versus malignant process. Recommend biopsy.Consequently, Dr. Alegre's second medical report reflects the following assessment:51chanrobleslawlibrary
Mild compression deformity, L3
Grade 1 spondylolisthesis, L4 over L5
Desiccated disks, L3-L4 and L4-L5
Low Back Pain secondary to Spondylolisthesis L5S1, Grade 1In sum, petitioner suffered from at least three (3) spinal conditions, i.e., degenerative disc, spondylolisthesis, and spinal tuberculosis. For purposes of determining whether petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, we must take into account all these conditions.
Soft Tissue Mass L3 with Extension into Epidural Space
Here, despite the findings that petitioner has degenerative disc and spondylolisthesis, respondents only treated and based their findings of non-compensability on petitioner's spinal tuberculosis. Notably, petitioner repeatedly asked that respondents likewise get him treated and medically assessed for his degenerative disc and spondylolisthesis. But respondents simply ignored his pleas. As a result, petitioner's degenerative disc and spondylolisthesis remained untreated and unresolved. Consequently, no medical assessment and certificate were issued to him for these conditions. On this score, the Court's pronouncement in Ampo-on v. Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc.53 is apropos:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
- The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;
- If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total;
- If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g. seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and
- If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification. (Emphasis supplied)
The responsibility of the company-designated physician to arrive at a definite assessment within the prescribed periods necessitates that the perceived disability rating has been properly established and inscribed in a valid and timely medical report. To be conclusive and to give proper disability benefits to the seafarer, this assessment must be complete and definite; otherwise, the medical report shall be set aside and the disability grading contained therein shall be ignored. As case law holds, a final and definite disability assessment is necessary in order to truly reflect the true extent of the sickness or injuries of the seafarer and his or her capacity to resume work as such.In sum, without a valid final and definitive assessment from the company-designated doctors within the mandatory 120/240-day period, as in this case, the law already steps in to consider a seafarer's disability as total and permanent.54
Failure of the company-designated physician to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability within the prescribed periods and if the seafarer's medical condition remains unresolved, the law steps in to consider the latter's disability as total and permanent. (Emphasis supplied)
In similar vein, the Court finds that the NLRC correctly ruled that petitioner's illnesses were work-related.Applying Talaroc to the present case, petitioner's claim for total and permanent disability benefits should be granted.
As a rule, a seafarer shall be entitled to compensation if he suffers from a work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract. Under the 2010 POEA-SEC, a "work-related illness" is defined as "any sickness as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this Contract with the conditions set therein satisfied." Corollarily, Section 20 (A) (4) thereof further provides that "[t]hose illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work-related."
Records reveal that petitioner's back pain-generalized disc bulge and disc protrusion, non-listed illnesses - occurred only while he was on board the vessel. While said illness was claimed to be degenerative in nature, the company doctor herself acknowledged that it may be aggravated or precipitated by heavy work or lifting/pushing or pulling of heavy objects, a manual task basically demanded from a seafarer. Since there was no proof to show that these activities were not performed by petitioner while he was on board or were not part of his duties while the ship was at berth as advanced by respondents, it can be safely concluded that the arduous nature of his job may have caused or at least aggravated his condition more so since he was declared fit to work prior to his deployment, hence, work-related. Jurisprudence provides that "[p]robability, not the ultimate degree of certainty, is the test of proof in compensation proceedings. And probability must be reasonable; hence it should, at least, be anchored on credible information," as in this case. (Emphasis supplied)
We are unconvinced by MMMI's claim that Alfredo's illness is not work-related. The company anchors its position on the "not work related" assessment of the company-designated physician and the fact that Alfredo suffers from a pre-existing coronary hypertension. While Alfredo has a pre[-]existing illness, such does not prove that his working condition did not aggravate the illness. It is settled that when it is shown that the seafarer's work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing disease, the condition/illness suffered by the seafarer shall be compensable. Here, Alfredo's tasks as Messman required physical labor. He explained that he performed a wide variety of responsibilities from cleaning in the vessel to lifting heavy loads as a porter. His work definitely produced stress and strain normally resulting in the wear and tear of the body. As his coronary hypertension was declared by the company-designated physicians as "cleared" in the PEME, it is highly probable that the strain of Alfredo's work aggravated his pre-existing condition that caused his heart attack episodes on board the vessel. We have held that "only reasonable proof of work-connection and not direct causal relation is required to establish compensability." Aside from the fact that Alfredo's condition is listed as an occupational disease, the undisputed fact that his pre-existing condition is controlled prior to deployment, but he later suffered episodes of heart attack on board the vessel, reasonably establish the work-relatedness of his illness.More, as with petitioner's degenerative disc and spondylolisthesis, respondents similarly failed to issue a final and definitive medical assessment on petitioner's spinal tuberculosis. As borne out by the records, respondents stopped paying sickness allowance to petitioner and denied his claim for total and permanent disability benefits based alone on the medical report issued by Dr. Alegre which declared petitioner's spinal tuberculosis to be not work related.61 Notably, however, this medical report falls short of being final and definite.
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional member per S.O. No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.
1Rollo, pp. 11-47.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and Louis P. Acosta, id. at 82-95.
3Id. at 55-57.
4Id. at 225, 230 and 282.
5Id. at 225.
6Id. at 225-226.
7Id. at 226.
8Id. at 226.
9Id. at 227.
10Id.
11Id. at 228, 231, 292, and 426.
12Id. at 231.
13Id. at 227-228.
14Id. at 228.
15Id. at 228 and 423.
16Id. at 224.
17Id. at 224-245.
18Id. at 245.
19Id. at 233-241.
20Id. at 241-243.
21 Penned by Commissioner Dolores M. Peralta-Beley and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Grace E. Maniquiz-Tan and Commissioner Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap, id. at 190-201.
22Id. at 200.
23Id. at 198 and 422.
24Id. at 170-173.
25Id. at 174-188.
26Id. at 82-95.
27Id. at 89-91.
28Id. at 91-93.
29Id. at 55-57.
30Id. at 65-78.
31See Petition for Review on Certiorari dated November 17, 2020, id. at 11-46.
32Id. at 23-27.
33Id. at 31-34.
34Id. at 35.
35Id. at 39.
36Id. at 475-485.
37Id. at 475-476.
38Id. at 479-480.
39Id. at 480-481.
40See Status Maritime Corporation v. Sps. Delalamon, 740 Phil. 175, 189 (2014).
41C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Legal Heirs of the Godofredo Repiso, 780 Phil. 645, 666 (2016).
42Philsynergy Maritime, Inc. v. Gallano, 832 Phil. 922, 937 (2018).
43Manansala v. Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc., 817 Phil. 84, 98 (2017).
44Rollo, p. 422.
45Id. at 414.
46Id. at 301-302.
47 829 Phil. 570, 583 (2018).
48Rollo, pp. 418-419.
49Id. at 286.
50Id. at 421.
51Id. at 287.
52 G.R. No. 239055, March 11, 2020, citing Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr., 765 Phil. 341, 363 (2015).
53 G.R. No. 240614, June 10, 2019.
54 See Gamboa v. Maunlad Trans, Inc., G.R. No. 232905, August 20, 2018.
55 763 Phil. 411, 420-421 (2015).
56Rollo, pp. 225-226.
57 817 Phil. 598, 615-616 (2017).
58Rollo, pp. 294-295.
59Id. at 296-297.
60 G.R. No. 226779, August 24, 2020.
61Rollo, p. 292.
62 830 Phil. 695, 706 (2018).
63Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara, 832 Phil. 380, 407 (2018).
64See G.R. No. 238842, November 19, 2018.
65See Esteva v. Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc., G.R. No. 225899, July 10, 2019.cralawredlibrary