SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 204203. February 6, 2013.]
BONIFACIO S. NOCUM, petitioner, vs. BSM CREW SERVICE CENTER (PHILS.), INC., AND/OR BERNARD SCHULTE SHIPMANAGEMENT (IOM) LTD. AND/OR ROY NOCHE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 February 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 204203 (Bonifacio S. Nocum, petitioner -versus- BSM Crew Service Center (Phils.), Inc., and/or Bernard Schulte Shipmanagement (IOM) Ltd. and/or Roy Noche, respondents).
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, 1 assailing the Decision 2 dated 13 December 2010 and Resolution 3 dated 15 July 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 114214.
The facts are as follows:
Petitioner Bonifacio S. Nocum is a seafarer. Sometime in 2008, petitioner was hired by respondent BSM Crew Service Center, Inc. (BSM) as messman on board the vessel M/V British Ruby owned by respondent Bernard Schulte Shipmanagement (IOM) Ltd. (BSS). 4 Petitioner boarded the M/V British Ruby on 27 June 2008. 5
While at sea sometime during the first week of September 2008, however, petitioner started to experience episodes of left-sided chest pains and shortness of breath. 6 When the M/V British Ruby docked at Singapore, petitioner got himself admitted and confined at the Gleneagles Hospital where he was diagnosed with having an enlarged heart due to Cardiomegaly. 7 On account of the diagnosis, petitioner was repatriated on 19 September 2008. 8 aCcSDT
Upon arriving in the Philippines, petitioner sought treatment from the company-designated physician, Dr. Mylene Cruz-Balbon (Dr. Balbon) of the Metropolitan Medical Center (MMC). 9 Dr. Babon also referred petitioner to a cardiologist, nephrologist and endocrinologist for examinations. 10 The results of these examinations show that petitioner was suffering from "Hypertension, Dilated Cardiomegaly, Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease and Chronic Kidney Disease secondary to Hypertension." 11
Petitioner was not issued a "fit to work" certificate by BSM.
Thus on 25 November 2008, petitioner filed a complaint against respondents BSM, BSS and one Roy Noche before the Labor Arbiter. 12 In it, petitioner asks for, among others, 13 the payment of disability benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between BSM and its seafarers, which allows recovery of such benefits in the event of permanent disability as a result of a "work-related illness" as defined by the 2000 POEA 14Amended Standard Terms and Conditions and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-board Ocean-going Vessels.
Petitioner alleges that his illness was caused or at least aggravated by his work as a messman in the M/V British Ruby, where he has to lift heavy cargoes in and out of the ship. 15 To bolster his claim, petitioner presented in evidence his Diagnostic Radiology and Cardiac Calcium Reports from his earlier admission at the Gleneagles Hospital. 16
In their position paper, on the other hand, respondents denied that the illness of petitioner work-related. 17 Respondents stood by the certification of Dr. Balbon that petitioner's illness was not work-related. 18
On 29 September 2009, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision dismissing the complaint. 19 Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA and granted petitioner's claim for disability benefits. 20 According to the NLRC, the evidence of petitioner sufficiently establishes that his illness was work-related. The respondents challenged the decision of the NLRC to the Court of Appeals via a certiorari petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 21
The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and reinstated the decision of the LA. 22 The appellate court disagreed with the NLRC in finding that the evidence of petitioner was sufficient to establish that his illness was work-related. 23 For the Court of Appeals, petitioner's evidence was not. 24
Hence this appeal 25 by petitioners, raising the following errors on the part of the Court of Appeals:
1. The Court of Appeals erred in re-evaluating the factual findings of the NLRC. 26 That is something beyond what the Court of Appeals may do in a certiorari petition, where the only issue should be whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion or not. 27 SCHcaT
2. Even assuming that the Court of Appeals may re-evaluate the factual findings of the NLRC, it nevertheless erred in holding that his illness was not work-related. 28 Under Section 20-B (4) 29 of the 2000 POEA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-board Ocean-going Vessels, his illness is "disputably presumed" as work-related.
Our Ruling
We deny the petition.
First. The first qualm of petitioner has already been addressed by this Court in Protacio v. Laya Mananghaya & Co.: 30
"As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the appellate court does not assess weight and the sufficiency of evidence upon which the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC based their conclusion. The query in this proceeding is limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision. However, as an exception, the appellate court may examine and measure the factual findings of the NLRC if the same are not supported by substantial evidence. The Court has not hesitated to affirm the appellate court's reversals of the decisions of labor tribunals if they are not supported by substantial evidence. (Emphasis supplied)"
The exception mentioned in the afore-quoted text is exactly what happened in this case. The Court of Appeals made a re-evaluation of the evidence since the factual findings of the NLRC was unsupported by substantial evidence. 31 As confirmed by jurisprudence, that is something that the appellate court may rightfully do in this case.
Second. We also find that the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that petitioner's evidence fall short of substantially proving that his illness is work-related. As observed by the Court of Appeals, the Diagnostic Radiology and Cardiac Calcium Reports attached by petitioner in his position paper never stated that the latter's illness was work-related. 32 All that petitioner has is his bare allegations, which, unfortunately, was contradicted by the certification of Dr. Balbon. 33
Even if petitioner's illness is to be "disputably presumed" as work-related pursuant to Section 20-B (4) of the 2000 POEA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-board Ocean-going Vessels, We find that such presumption has been sufficiently rebutted by the contrary certification of Dr. Balbon. As noted by the Court of Appeals, the CBA between BSM and its seamen states that it is the company-designated physician who must declare that a claimant is suffering from a compensable permanent disability. 34 The CBA also provides that should the claimant disagree with the finding of the company-designated physician, he may dispute the same by seeking a second opinion from another doctor of his choice — in which case, the finding of a third doctor amenable both to BSM and the claimant is resorted to. 35 ACTESI
In this case, petitioner did not dispute the certification of Dr. Balbon pursuant to the CBA. To our mind, this makes the finding of Dr. Balbon credible enough to rebut any presumption that petitioner's illness is work-related.
We, therefore, find no impelling reason to reverse the Court of Appeals.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2.Rollo, pp. 34-47. The Decision was penned by Justice Michael P. Elbinias for the Special Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals wish Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Socorro B. Inting concurring.
3.Id. at 48-49.
4.Id. at 35.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 36.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 37.
13.Id. Includes claims for moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
14.Philippine Overseas Employment Agency.
15.Rollo, pp. 36-37.
16.Id. at 36.
17.Id. at 41.
18.Id. at 43.
19.Id. at 37.
20.Id. at 37-38.
21.Id. at 39.
22.Id. at 34-47.
23.Id. at 40.
24.Id.
25.Id. at 4-33.
26.Id. at 22-25.
27.Id. at 25.
28.Id. at 25-30.
29.Section 20-B (4) of the 2000 POEA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-board Ocean-going Vessels, provides: "Those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work-related."
30.G.R. No. 168654, 25 March 2009, 582 SCRA 417, 427.
31.Rollo, pp. 40-45.
32.Id. at 42.
33.Id. at 42-44.
34.Id. at 43-44.
35.Id. at 44.