SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231760. August 30, 2017.]
RAMON CENTENO ADRIANO, JR., REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE, NIDA APOCERO ADRIANO, petitioner,vs. MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD., A BERMUDA COMPANY, AND/OR MR. MARLON RONO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 30 August 2017 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 231760 (Ramon Centeno Adriano, Jr., represented by his wife, Nida Apocero Adriano v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., A Bermuda Company, and/or Mr. Marlon Rono)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the December 22, 2016 Decision 1 and May 29, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 143347 for failure of petitioner Ramon Centeno Adrian, Jr., represented by his wife, Nida Apocero Adriano (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the dismissal of his complaint for total and permanent total disability benefits.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner failed to substantiate that his illness, avascular necrosis, was contracted or aggravated by his working conditions as first cook aboard the cruise ship. Jurisprudence teaches that a seafarer must not only establish that his injury or illness rendered him permanently or partially disabled, it is equally pertinent that he shows a causal connection between such injury or illness and the work for which he had been contracted. 3
Settled is the rule that where the factual findings of the labor tribunals or agencies conform to, and are affirmed by the CA, the same are accorded respect and finality and are binding upon this Court. 4
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 61-67. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez with Associate Justices Leoncia R. Dimagiba and Edwin D. Sorongon concurring.
2.Id. at 69-70.
3. See Nonay v. Bahia Shipping Services, February 17, 2016, G.R. No. 206758, 784 SCRA 292, 312. The rule on the burden of proof with regard to claims for disability benefits was also reiterated in Dohle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. v. Heirs of Gazzingan, 760 Phil. 861, 878 (2015): [T]he 2000 POEA-SEC has created a presumption of compensability for those illnesses which are not listed as an occupational disease. Section 20 (B), paragraph (4) states that "those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work-related." Concomitant with this presumption is the burden placed upon the claimant to present substantial evidence that his work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease and only a reasonable proof of work-connection, not direct causal relation is required to establish compensability of illnesses not included in the list of occupational diseases.
4.Centennial Transmarine, Inc. v. Quiambao, G.R. No. 198096, July 8, 2015, 756 SCRA 236, 251, citing Superior Packaging Corporation v. Balagsay, G.R. No. 178909, October 10, 2012, 683 SCRA 394, 400.