FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241401. November 11, 2021.]
MARSUN SHIPPING CORP., YAWATAHAMA SHOSEN CO., LTD. AND DIEGO SAGISI, petitioners, vs.HEIRS OF ORLANDO A. DUBDUBAN, REPRESENTED BY ELEANOR B. DUBDUBAN AND HONEY ORLEAN B. DUBDUBAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241401 — Marsun Shipping Corp., Yawatahama Shosen Co., Ltd. and Diego Sagisi v. Heirs of Orlando A. Dubduban, represented by Eleanor B. Dubduban and Honey Orlean B. Dubduban
Antecedents
Petitioner Marsun Shipping Corporation (Marsun) was the manning agency of respondent Orlando Dubduban (Dubduban). Meanwhile, petitioners Yawatahama Shosen Co., Ltd. (Yawatahama) and Diego Sagisi were Marsun's principal and president, respectively. From 2008 to 2015, or about seven (7) years, Marsun hired Orlando as Oiler and Third Engineer on behalf of Yawatahama. 1
On March 8, 2014, Orlando boarded Yawatahama's MV Pacific Comrade for a ten (10)-month employment contract. Later that year, he complained of stomach pains but was not given immediate medical attention, only medicines to treat ulcer.
On January 6, 2015, his contract got extended for two (2) months. During this period, Orlando felt increasing pain and discomfort in his abdomen and pleaded petitioners to have him checked. 2
On February 11, 2015, Orlando was referred to a doctor in China for medical checkup which revealed that he was suffering from an enlarged gallbladder. The doctor suspected that it was due to liver ascites and cirrhosis and gave the following recommendation: 3
NOT FIT TO WORK ONBOARD FOR LONG OR RISK OF DETERIORATION WILL INCREASE. PLEASE REPATRIATE HIM AT NEXT PORT. EcTCAD
Despite the doctor's recommendation, petitioners brought Orlando back on board MV Pacific Comrade and continued to Korea for business operations. 4
In Korea, Orlando was again subjected to medical checkup, the results of which confirmed he was suffering from liver cirrhosis and was no longer fit to work. The Request for Medical Checkup/Treatment 5 dated February 16, 2015 read: "He can travel but he must go [to a] hospital for further check up and treatment."
Consequently, Orlando got repatriated on February 17, 2015 and reported his condition at petitioners' office the following day. He was placed under the care of Sachly International Health Partners Diagnostic and Medical Center (Ship Clinic) where he was evaluated by their specialists. 6 On February 27, 2015, Ship Clinic's Dr. Susannah Ong-Salvador confirmed that Orlando had Pancreatic Malignancy with Liver and Peritoneal Metastasis. She also opined that the risk factors for Orlando's condition included family history of the disease, smoking, age, long term or chronic pancreatitis, and diabetes, which are all non-work related. 7
On March 1, 2015, Orlando passed away. Thus, Orlando's widow Eleanor and minor daughter Honey Orlean, both surnamed Dubduban (Heirs of Orlando), claimed death benefits from petitioners. In response, petitioners initially offered US$5,000.00 as financial assistance, which they later increased to US$10,000.00. 8 But respondents rejected the same and filed a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for non-payment of death benefits. 9
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
By Decision 10 dated December 21, 2015, Labor Arbiter Fe S. Cellan granted the complaint, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Marsun Shipping Corporation, Yawatahama Shosen Co., Ltd. and Diego Sagisi, are held solidarity liable for death benefits due to the complainants in the amount of $50,000.00, $7,000.00 to the minor daughter, burial expenses of $1,000.00, or their equivalent in Philippine currency at the time of payment, moral damage of P100,000.00, exemplary damages of P50,000.00, ten (10%) percent of the total monetary award as attorney's fees, with legal interest [of] 6% based on the total award starting on 01 March 2015 until full payment.
SO ORDERED.
Labor Arbiter Cellan noted that petitioners did not give proper attention to Orlando's condition; they did not immediately repatriate him despite the advice of his doctor in China. The delay in Orlando's repatriation aggravated his condition, hence, his illness and eventual cause of death was work-related and compensable. 11
Ruling of the NLRC
Under Decision 12 dated April 26, 2016, the NLRC reversed, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision of Labor Arbiter Fe S. Cellan dated December 21, 2015 is VACATED, and a new one issued DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit. Appellants are, however, directed to grant financial assistance to complainants in the amount of Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000.00) at the prevailing rate at the time of payment. AScHCD
SO ORDERED.
It essentially held that respondents failed to prove that Orlando's illness was work-related. 13 It denied reconsideration on May 27, 2016. 14
Dispositions of the Court of Appeals
As borne in its Decision 15 dated April 26, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 146835, the Court of Appeals partly granted respondents' appeal. It concurred with the Labor Arbiter that petitioners contributed in aggravating Orlando's condition, thus, his disease and cause of death should be deemed work-related. 16 It, nevertheless, deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees since respondents failed to prove that petitioners acted in bad faith, 17 thus:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is partly GRANTED. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 21 December 2015 is REINSTATED. The awards for the payment of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees are DELETED for lack of basis.
SO ORDERED.18
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration got denied on August 15, 2018. 19
The Present Petition
Petitioners now fault the Court of Appeals for awarding death benefits in favor of respondent heirs despite the latter's failure to discharge the burden of proving that Orlando's death was work-related. They assert that they did not aggravate Orlando's condition. On the contrary, they immediately complied with the recommendation of Orlando's attending physician in China and immediately repatriated him from Korea on February 17, 2015. 20
At any rate, Orlando's illness was allegedly not work-related, hence, his resultant death was not compensable. To be sure, Pancreatic Malignancy with Liver and Pretoneal Metastasis (pancreatic cancer) is not among the occupational diseases listed under Section 32-A of the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Agency-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). This, too, purportedly conformed with the opinion of Dr. Ong-Salvador of Ship Clinic that the risk factors of Orlando's illness were not work-related.
In their Comment, 21 respondent Heirs of Orlando defend the dispositions of the Court of Appeals. They riposte that petitioners' inaction indubitably aggravated Orlando's illness, thus, his death was compensable. In any event, Orlando also had gallbladder cancer which is considered an occupational disease under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC. 22
As for the monetary awards, respondents claim they are entitled to moral and exemplary damages for petitioners' failure to give timely medical attention to Orlando. They, too, are entitled to attorney's fees as they were forced to litigate. Finally, all monetary awards should earn six percent (6%) legal interest per annum. 23
Petitioners reiterate their claims in their Reply. 24
Our Ruling
We deny the petition.
Preliminarily, the lone issue here — whether Orlando's illness and eventual cause of death was work-related, is a pure question of fact. Generally, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not embark in the evaluation of evidence adduced before the tribunals below. But when the factual findings of the labor tribunals are conflicting or contradictory with those of the Court of Appeals, as here, the Court may re-examine the facts once again. 25
Requirements for compensability
Section 20 (B) of the POEA-SEC pertinently states:
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS. —
xxx xxx xxx
B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR DEATH
1. In case of work-related death of the seafarer, during the term of his contract, the employer shall pay his beneficiaries the Philippine currency equivalent to the amount of Fifty Thousand US dollars (US$50,000) and an additional amount of Seven Thousand US dollars (US$7,000) to each child under the age of twenty-one (21) but not exceeding four (4) children, at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment. TAIaHE
xxx xxx xxx
4. The other liabilities of the employer when the seafarer dies as a result of work-related injury or illness during the term of employment are as follows:
a. The employer shall pay the deceased's beneficiary all outstanding obligations due the seafarer under this Contract.
b. The employer shall transport the remains and personal effects of the seafarer to the Philippines at employer's expense except if the death occurred in a port where local government laws or regulations do not permit the transport of such remains. In case death occurs at sea, the disposition of the remains shall be handled or dealt with in accordance with the master's best judgment. In all cases, the employer/master shall communicate with the manning agency to advise for disposition of seafarer's remains.
c. The employer shall pay the beneficiaries of the seafarer the Philippine currency equivalent to the amount of One Thousand US dollars (US$1,000) for burial expenses at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment. (Emphases supplied)
Verily, the seafarer's beneficiaries may successfully claim death benefits if they are able to establish that the seafarer's death (a) was work-related, and (b) had occurred during the term of his or her employment contract. 26
With respect to the second requirement, the Court has already clarified in Canuel v. Magsaysay Maritime Corp.27 that the seafarer's death occurring after the termination of his or her employment may still be compensable when said termination was due to his or her medical repatriation on account of a work-related injury or illness. Thus, all the Court needs to determine here is whether Orlando's illness, the cause of his repatriation and eventual death, is work-related. For establishing work-relatedness in this particular case would simultaneously establish both requirements for death benefit claims.
Orlando's illness and eventual
i. A disputable presumption of
The POEA-SEC defines "Work-Related Illness" as "any sickness as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC with the conditions set therein satisfied." But this does not mean that only those illnesses listed in Section 32-A are compensable. For under Section 20 (A) (4) of the POEA-SEC, illnesses not listed in Section 32-A are disputably presumed as work-related, 28viz.:
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS. —
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
xxx xxx xxx
4. Those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work-related.
Verily, the POEA-SEC has created a disputable presumption in favor of compensability. This means that even if the illness is not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, it will still be presumed as work-related and it becomes incumbent on the employer to overcome the presumption. 29 This presumption would be overturned only when the employer's refutation is supported by substantial evidence which, as traditionally defined, is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion." 30 TCAScE
It thus becomes fairly obvious that petitioners erred in claiming that, first, the exclusion of pancreatic cancer in Section 32-A renders it a non-compensable illness, and, second, the respondents had the burden of proving that said illness was work-related. To be sure, it is undisputed here that Orlando's condition, i.e., pancreatic cancer, is not among the enumerated illnesses under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC. Consequently, the disputable presumption in favor of compensability under Section 20 (A) (4) comes into play. Contrary to petitioners' claim, the burden was upon them to prove otherwise.
To refute the presumption, the best petitioners had to offer was the opinion of Dr. Ong-Salvador, citing family history, smoking, age, long term or chronic pancreatitis, and diabetes as risk factors for Orlando's condition. She noted that such risk factors were not work-related, suggesting that Orlando's illness was not work-related as well.
We are not convinced.
Whether Orlando's condition was caused by non-work related risk factors is of no moment. In Heirs of Licuanan v. Singa Ship Management, Inc., the Court categorically held that it is not required that the employment be the sole factor in the growth, development, or acceleration of the illness to entitle the claimant to the benefits incident thereto. As will be discussed below, it is enough that the employment had contributed, even in a small measure, to the development of the disease.
ii. Orlando's illness was aggravated by his
Under the work aggravation theory, the condition or illness suffered by a seafarer shall be compensable when it is shown that the seafarer's work contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation thereof. 31
To illustrate, in Calera v. Hoegh Fleet Services Philippines, Inc., 32 petitioner suffered an injury after he slipped in the bathroom of Holiday Inn. The Court held that his injury from the alleged accident, by itself, was not compensable. As it was, however, petitioner reported to his superiors the excruciating pain and recurring numbness he had been experiencing on his lower back after said incident, yet his request for pain relievers fell on deaf ears. Worse, instead of showing compassion, his superiors ordered him to immediately get back to work, making him carry heavy baggage and cans of grease. Thus, his otherwise non-compensable injury became compensable as it was aggravated by his work.
Applying the work aggravation theory, both the Labor Arbiter and Court of Appeals correctly characterized Orlando's condition as a work-related illness, aggravated as it was by petitioners' delay in obtaining medical treatment for him.
It must be recalled that Orlando complained of pain and discomfort in his abdomen as early as 2014 only to be met with an attitude of indifference from petitioners. He was not given immediate medical attention, only medicines to treat ulcer. It was only on February 11, 2015, after Orlando pleaded with petitioners to have him checked, when he finally got referred to a doctor in China. His doctor suspected that he was suffering from liver cirrhosis and, thus, recommended his immediate repatriation. Yet petitioners did not heed the recommendation and continued to Korea for business with Orlando in tow. 33 It took another round of checkup in Korea before petitioners repatriated Orlando on February 17, 2015. During this six (6)-day period, it was not shown that Orlando was receiving any medical treatment. Certainly, this aggravated Orlando's fatal illness.
Petitioners, nevertheless, argue that they were not remiss in extending medical assistance to Orlando. They claim that they simply followed the recommendation of his doctor in China to immediately "REPATRIATE HIM AT THE NEXT PORT" which was Korea.
The argument fails to persuade.
The recommendation to repatriate Orlando at the next port should be read together with the other remarks of his doctor:
NOT FIT TO WORK ONBOARD FOR LONG OR RISK OF DETERIORATION WILL INCREASE. PLEASE REPATRIATE HIM AT NEXT PORT. (Emphasis added) ITAaHc
Clearly, Orlando was no longer fit for work. In other words, he no longer had any reason to stay on board MV Pacific Comrade. On the contrary, it was of utmost importance for him to immediately get repatriated so that he may receive medical treatment here in the Philippines. Otherwise, his condition might deteriorate as his doctor in China warned. Indeed, time was of the essence in Orlando's repatriation. Yet petitioners did not promptly act to address his medical condition and opted to wait for about a week before repatriating him to the Philippines.
At any rate, the conclusion that petitioners failed to immediately provide medical attention to Orlando was not hinged on his belated repatriation alone. Petitioners' attitude of indifference to Orlando's medical condition was also manifest when, in late 2014, they gave him medicine for ulcer instead of having him checked by a doctor.
In sum, applying the disputable presumption of compensability under Section 20 (A) (4) of the POEA-SEC and the work aggravation theory, the Court upholds the finding of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals that Orlando's illness and eventual cause of death was truly work-related.
Monetary Awards
Section 20 (B) (1) 34 of the POEA-SEC states that in case of work-related death of the seafarer during the term of his or her contract, the employer shall pay his or her beneficiaries US$50,000.00 and an additional US$7,000.00 to each child under the age of twenty-one (21) but not exceeding four (4) children. Meanwhile, Section 20 (B) (4) (c) 35 mandates employers to pay an additional US$1,000.00 for burial expenses. Hence, the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals did not err in awarding US$58,000.00 to respondents.
On the other hand, the Court of Appeals rightfully deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages since petitioners did not act in bad faith. Although there was delay in Orlando's repatriation, petitioners immediately referred him to Ship Clinic when he got here and made sure that he received medical attention. They, too, offered financial assistance of US$10,000.00 to respondents when Orlando passed away, albeit respondents rejected the same.
The award of ten percent (10%) attorney's fees should, nevertheless, be reinstated in accordance with Article 2208 (8) of the Civil Code. 36 Finally, all monetary awards shall earn six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 37
As for the persons liable, Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, 38 as amended by Republic Act No. 10022, 39 decrees:
SEC. 10. Money Claims. — Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damage. Consistent with this mandate, the NLRC shall endeavor to update and keep abreast with the developments in the global services industry.
The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under this section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. The performance bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all money claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages. (Emphases added)
xxx xxx xxx
So must it be. 40
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for utter lack of merit. The Decision dated April 26, 2018 and Resolution dated August 15, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 146835 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Petitioners MARSUN SHIPPING CORPORATION, YAWATAHAMA SHOSEN CO., LTD. and DIEGO SAGISI are solidarily liable to respondent HEIRS OF ORLANDO DUBDUBAN for death benefits of US$58,000.00 and ten percent (10%) attorney's fees. These monetary awards shall earn six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. CHTAIc
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 16.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 182.
4.Id. at 17.
5.Id. at 183.
6.Id. at 17.
7.Id. at 197.
8.Id. at 248.
9.Id. at 134.
10.Id. at 246.
11.Id. at 250-253.
12.Id. at 115.
13.Id. at 126-127.
14.Id. at 130.
15.Id. at 15.
16.Id. at 20.
17.Id. at 23.
18.Id.
19.Id. at 26.
20.Id. at 38-39.
21.Id. at 726.
22.Id. at 732-741.
23.Id. at 742-743.
24.Id. at 801.
25.Moll v. Convergys Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 253715, April 28, 2021.
26.Canuel v. Magsaysay Maritime Corp., 745 Phil. 252, 262 (2014).
27. 745 Phil. 252, 274 (2014).
28.Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Heirs of Buenaflor, G.R. No. 227447, June 23, 2020.
29.Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Heirs of Buenaflor, G.R. No. 227447, June 23, 2020, citing Racelis v. United Philippines Lines, Inc., 746 Phil. 758, 767 (2014).
30.Racelis v. United Philippines Lines, Inc., 746 Phil. 758, 767 (2014).
31.Mabute v. Bright Maritime Corp., G.R. No. 219872, September 9, 2020.
32. G.R. No. 250584, June 14, 2021.
33.Rollo, p. 17.
34. 1. In case of work-related death of the seafarer, during the term of his contract, the employer shall pay his beneficiaries the Philippine currency equivalent to the amount of Fifty Thousand US dollars (US$50,000) and an additional amount of Seven Thousand US dollars (US$7,000) to each child under the age of twenty-one (21) but not exceeding four (4) children, at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment.
35. 4. The other liabilities of the employer when the seafarer dies as a result of work-related injury or illness during the term of employment are as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
c. The employer shall pay the beneficiaries of the seafarer the Philippine currency equivalent to the amount of One Thousand US dollars (US$1,000) for burial expenses at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment.
36. Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
xxx xxx xxx
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws;
xxx xxx xxx
37.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).
38. AN ACT TO INSTITUTE THE POLICIES OF OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT AND ESTABLISH A HIGHER STANDARD OF PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE WELFARE OF MIGRANT WORKERS, THEIR FAMILIES AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS IN DISTRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
39. AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8042, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE MIGRANT WORKERS AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS ACT OF 1995, AS AMENDED, FURTHER IMPROVING THE STANDARD OF PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE WELFARE OF MIGRANT WORKERS, THEIR FAMILIES AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS IN DISTRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
40. See Rosales v. Singa Ship Management Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 234914, February 19, 2020.