THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 215577. June 22, 2020.]
CAREER PHILIPPINES SHIPMANAGEMENT, CMA SHIPS UK LIMITED AND CAPT. VERLOU CARMELINO, petitioners,vs. RONALD J. SENSON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 22, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 215577 (Career Philippines Shipmanagement, CMA Ships UK Limited and Capt. Verlou Carmelino v. Ronald J. Senson). — Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 dated March 20, 2014 and the Resolution 3 dated November 20, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 131572, which reversed and set aside the Resolutions dated May 8, 2013 and June 25, 2013 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC-NCR-OFW (M)-078-10624-12, which affirmed the Decision dated January 31, 2013 of the Labor Arbiter's (LA) dismissing respondent Ronald J. Senson's claim for disability benefits.
Facts of the Case
The record showed that on May 31, 2011, respondent entered into a 9-month contract with petitioner Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. in behalf of its foreign principal CMA Ships UK Limited. Respondent was a bosun on board the vessel CMA CGM Magellan. After undergoing the required Pre-Employment Medical Examination, wherein respondent was given a Fit-to-Work certification, he boarded the vessel on July 27, 2011. 4
On the vessel, respondent was tasked to spray paint the incomplete and unfinished parts of the vessel's final coat painting. Thousands of litters of paints and thinners were used for the final coating. 5
Due to respondent's good performance, the master of the vessel requested petitioners to re-engage respondent to board the vessel again. As such, respondent's contract was cut short in order for him to join the same vessel on its next voyage. 6
One month before respondent was signed off, he experienced cough, colds and a heart burn sensation. Respondent requested a medical check-up, but due to the tight schedule of the vessel, petitioner was not able to arrange the same until respondent's disembarkation. 7 On March 20, 2012, respondent was repatriated. 8
Respondent immediately reported to petitioner and discussed the plans of the vessel master for him to rejoin the same vessel in 2 and a half months. Thereafter, respondent requested for a check-up. Since respondent seemed well, however, petitioner merely referred respondent to the Maritime Medical and Laboratory Clinic on April 3, 2012 for the required pre-embarkation medical examination. 9 The x-ray results noted a "well[-]defined pulmonary mass in the right upper lung x x x right hilum appears suspicious as well." 10
Petitioner informed respondent that they would not shoulder the expenses of his medication and hospitalization. Respondent went to the Seamen's Hospital for a series of examinations. Results showed "pulmonary mass, inflammatory vs. neoplastic." 11 Biopsy of respondent's right supraclavicular area of his lymph node was consistent with a metastatic squamous carcinoma. After evaluation of all the tests, it was established that respondent had small cell lung cancer, stage III. 12
From June to August 2012, respondent was subjected to chemotherapy. On August 28, 2012, respondent was declared unfit for sea duty by his physician. 13
Respondent filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance. In his position paper, respondent claimed that his illness was work-related because when he was on board the vessel he was made to spray paint the vessel even in confined spaces without proper ventilation. 14
For their part, the petitioners claimed that respondent's illness was not work-related. Further, respondent failed to undergo the mandatory post-employment medical examination within 3 days upon repatriation. 15
On January 31, 2013, LA Rommel R. Veluz dismissed the complaint. The LA held that respondent's illness was not work-related. There was no evidence showing that the illness was contracted or developed during the existence of respondent's contract. 16
Pending respondent's appeal with the NLRC, respondent expired due to multiple organ failure, secondary to Bronchogenic Cancer, stage IV. However, no motion for substitution of heirs was filed. 17
On May 8, 2013, the NLRC affirmed the Decision of the LA. The NLRC ruled that there was no reasonable connection between the lung cancer and the risk involved in his duties as a bosun. There was also no proof that respondent's exposure to the chemicals of spray paint while on board the vessel was contributory to his illness. 18
Undeterred, respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.
On March 20, 2014, the CA reversed the ruling of the labor tribunals. The CA held that there was a reasonable connection between respondent's job and his lung cancer which developed into multiple organ failure and ultimately caused his death. As a bosun, in addition to harmful chemicals inhaled during spray painting, respondent was also exposed to harsh sea weather, chemical irritants and dusts, all of which invariably contributed to his illness. 19 Thus:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed May 8, 2013 and June 25, 2013 Resolutions of the NLRC are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is rendered, ordering [petitioners] to pay jointly and severally, [respondent], through his heirs, the amount of EIGHTY-NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED (US$89,100.00) US DOLLARS as permanent total disability benefits, and 10% thereof as attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED. 20
Petitioners argued that respondent was not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits because his lung cancer is not listed as an occupational disease in Section 32-A of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and respondent failed to prove that his illness was work-related. Petitioners claim that it cannot just be presumed that the seafarer's work caused or aggravated his ailment. If at all, respondent contracted the illness after his employment contract with petitioners. The CA's ruling that respondent's illness was work-related because as a bosun, he was subjected to harmful chemicals inhaled during spray painting and was exposed to harsh sea weather, chemical irritants and dust is serious error and based on unsubstantiated allegations. 21
Petitioners further claim that the medical reports presented by the respondent do not show how the illness was contracted or how the same can be considered work-related. The results of the complete bone scan, CT scan, and brain MRI only established that respondent had non-small cell lung cancer, stage III probably caused by prolonged exposure to chemicals during the spray painting of the vessel. 22
Petitioners deny that respondent was ordered to paint and finish the final coating of the vessel. Petitioners also deny that before respondent was repatriated, he suffered mild cough, colds, and had some heart burn sensation. Neither did respondent request for a medical check-up on board the vessel (but was not arranged due to time constraints of the vessel in the port), nor did respondent inform petitioners of his request for medical check-up upon disembarkation. 23
Nevertheless, assuming that respondent contracted the disease during his term of employment with petitioners, he is still precluded from claiming disability benefits because he failed to submit himself to a mandatory post-employment medical examination. 24
Respondent counter that petitioners' arguments are not based on substantial evidence. Petitioners merely presented respondent's employment contract and the CBA addendum. Only on appeal did they present the sworn statement of the alleged master of the vessel stating that respondent. did not suffer any illness on board the vessel. 25 Petitioners merely relied on their argument that respondent was repatriated due to finished contract. 26
Respondent presented medical records which showed that from the time of his disembarkation, he sought medical consult and was found to be suffering from lung cancer, stage III. Petitioners never disputed each medical finding, nor did they present any certificate or opinion categorically stating that respondent's illness was not work-related. 27
Petitioners insist that respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under the POEA-SEC, which bars him to claim disability benefits. However, a review of the records would show that respondent requested for a post-employment medical examination but petitioners refused since they found no need for the same because respondent was not medically repatriated. 28
Issue
The issue in this case is whether respondent is entitled to his total and permanent disability benefits.
The Court's Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
At the outset, the instant petition for review on certiorari should be dismissed for failure of petitioners to attach to its petition such material portions of the records as would support their petition. As provided for under Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the petition shall:
(a) state the full name of the appealing party as the petitioner and the adverse party as respondent, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, and the reasons or arguments relied on for the allowance of the petition; (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record as would support the petition; and (e) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. (Emphasis supplied)
Under the succeeding section, the failure of petitioners to comply with the contents of the petition and the documents, which should accompany the petition shall be a sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. Here, the petition was only accompanied by the CA Decision. Petitioners did not even bother to attach the Decisions of the LA and the NLRC, which they claim are the correct resolution of this case. Thus, for petitioners' patent violation of the rules, the instant petition should be dismissed.
Nevertheless, even if We decide this case based on the merits, the petition should still be dismissed.
Section 20 of the POEA-SEC states that for an illness or injury to be compensable, it is necessary that the injury or illness must be work-related; and that the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment.
When an illness or injury is not included as an occupational disease or illness under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, such illness is disputably presumed as work-related. This disputable presumption, however, does not mean that the seafarer should sit idly while the seafarer's employer disputes such presumption. The seafarer must still show a causal connection between the illness and the work for which he was contracted.
Under Section 32-A, for an illness or injury to be compensable, the following conditions should be met:
a. the seafarer's work must involve the risks described therein;
b. the disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risk;
c. the disease was contracted within a period of exposure and other factors necessary to contract it;
d. there was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.
Here, respondent was able to show that his illness was work-relate. There was a causal connection between his illness and the task he performed on board the vessel, spray painting the vessel. Lung cancer, stage III develops over time. To note, from March 20, 2012, the date of respondent's disembarkation until April 3, 2012, the date when respondent was referred to the Maritime Medical and Laboratory for his pre-employment medical examination, only 14 days had lapsed. It is highly impossible for lung cancer to be acquired and to progress immediately to stage III only after respondent's contract ended with petitioners and in that short span of time. It is more logical and supported by records that the said illness already existed on board the vessel or at least was aggravated by respondent's work on the vessel.
Respondent was made to spray paint the vessel for a long period, thus inhaling harmful chemicals, chemical fumes from the paint, chemical irritants and dusts which contributed to his illness. A 2011 British Journal of Cancer study 29 shows that silica dust, diesel exhaust, and spray paint are the significant occupational risk factors for lung cancer. There is a positive gradient of lung cancer and of adenocarcinoma with the duration of employment for workers exposed to silica dust and spray painting.
It is settled that it is not necessary that the seafarer's work is the sole reason for the illness. It is enough that it aggravated the illness and it contributed to the illness. As held in the case of Nonay v. Bahia Shipping Services, Inc.: 30
Settled is the rule that for an illness to be compensable, it is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and only reason for the illness suffered by the seafarer. It is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had. 31
Petitioners argue that respondent is not entitled to claim disability benefits because he failed to submit himself to the mandatory 3-day period for a post-employment medical examination. Petitioners, however, failed to prove such allegation. Upon respondent's disembarkation, he visited petitioners' office to discuss his deployment to the same vessel again. Thereafter, respondent reiterated his request for medical check-up. Petitioners, however, merely referred respondent to his pre-employment medical examination with the Maritime Medical and Laboratory. Since it is petitioners who refused to refer respondent to the company-designated physician for check-up, respondent should not be prejudiced by petitioners' inaction.
Considering that respondent's illness is work-related and that the same existed during his employment with petitioners, respondent is entitled to his permanent and total disability benefits. From the time of respondent's repatriation on March 20, 2012 until his death on April 14, 2013, respondent was unable to return for work for a period of 120 days.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated March 20, 2014 and Resolution dated November 20, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 131572 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 25-39.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Ramon A. Cruz; id. at 11-20.
3.Id. at 22-23.
4.Id. at 12.
5.Id. at 66.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 13.
8.Id. at 86.
9.Id. at 66-67.
10.Id. at 48.
11.Id. at 67.
12.Id. at 67-68.
13.Id. at 12.
14.Id. at 13.
15.Id. at 93-94.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 14.
19.Id. at 16-18.
20.Id. at 19.
21.Id. at 30-32.
22.Id. at 33.
23.Id. at 30-32.
24.Id. at 33.
25.Id. at 106-107.
26.Id. at 110.
27.Id.
28.Id. at 111.
29. Tse, L. A., Yu, IT-s, Au, J. S. K., Qiu, H. & Wang, X-r, Silica dust, diesel exhaust, and painting work are the significant occupational risk factors for lung cancer in non-smoking Chinese men, January 2011.
30. 781 Phil. 197 (2016).
31.Id. at 216-217, citing Dayo v. Status Maritime Corp., 751 Phil. 778, 789 (2015).