THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234669. January 10, 2018.]
OROPHIL SHIPPING INT'L. CO., INC. AND/OR HAKUHO KISEN CO., LTD., petitioner, vs. JOHN RICHARD O. LIMBO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 10, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234669 (Orophil Shipping Int'l. Co., Inc. and/or Hakuho Kisen Co., Ltd. v. John Richard O. Limbo) — This is a petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, assailing the Decision 1 and Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals 3 dated July 5, 2017 and September 29, 2017, respectively, which found petitioners Orophil Shipping Int'l. Co., Inc. and/or Hakuho Kisen Co., Ltd., liable to pay respondent John Richard O. Limbo total and permanent disability benefits. EcTCAD
Facts
On June 19, 2013, Orophil Shipping Int'l. Co., Inc. (petitioner), on behalf of its principal, Hakuho Kisen Co., Ltd., employed John Richard O. Limbo (respondent) as able seaman on board M/V Lady Giovi for a period of nine months. Sometime in September 2013, respondent was ordered to clean all the seven cargo holds of the vessel, using a pressurized water hose. To clean the cargo hold's walls, respondent had to put the hose in between his armpit or raise the nozzle over his head, which strained his neck, shoulders, and back. Two days after cleaning the cargo holds, respondent started feeling pain in his neck and back. On November 6, 2013, respondent was examined by a doctor in Australia and was prohibited from lifting things over ten kilograms. On November 12, 2013, he was repatriated to the Philippines.
On November 15, 2013, the company-designated doctor initially diagnosed respondent to be suffering from "T/C Muscle Spasm of Paraspinal Muscles." After several treatments, respondent was diagnosed with "Muscle Spasm of Paraspinal Muscles; TMJ Dysfunction, right." On March 5, 2014, respondent was further diagnosed to be suffering from "Disc Protrusion with desiccation C3-4 and C5-C6; Spinal Canal Stenosis C5-C6; TMJ Dysfunction, right." On March 19, 2014, respondent was confined at the Manila Doctor's Hospital because he could not move. Although his neck and back were still painful and swollen, he was discharged after one month of confinement.
On March 26, 2014, the company-designated doctor concluded that respondent's condition was not work-related and most probably was pre-existing. The company-designated doctor explained that respondent's illness in his spine was degenerative in nature, and thus gave him a Grade 10-interim disability assessment.
On May 9, 2014, respondent was diagnosed to be "permanently unfit in any capacity to resume his sea duties as a seaman." 4
Aggrieved, respondent raised his complaint through the grievance conference, but the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement.
Ruling of the Voluntary Arbitrators
On May 31, 2016, the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators awarded respondent total and permanent disability benefits equivalent to USD60,000.00 and attorney's fees. The Voluntary Arbitrators determined that although his illness was not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32 of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), it can be presumed that his illness was work-related based on Section 20-A (4). Also, the company-designated doctor never concluded that respondent's illness was not work-related. Instead, according to the medical findings, as worded by the company-designated doctor, "[respondent's] diagnosed condition is not work-related and most PROBABLY pre-existing." 5
The Voluntary Arbitrators further resolved that for an illness to be considered an occupational disease, it is enough that there is a "reasonable link between the disease suffered by the employee and his work. x x x that the work of the seafarer may have contributed to the establishment, or at least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had," 6 which is the attendant circumstance in the case at bar.
Finally, as respondent's illness persisted beyond the 240-day period, he was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
Ruling of the CA
The CA affirmed the findings of the Voluntary Arbitrators. Although the company-designated doctor assessed that respondent was suffering with a Grade 10 disability, such analysis was merely tentative since it was issued only on March 26, 2014 or 156 days from respondent's confinement. What was controlling was that respondent's illness persisted for more than 240 days, which qualified him to be permanently and totally disabled.
Hence, the present petition, which argues that the CA committed a reversible error in affirming the ruling of the Voluntary Arbitrators in finding petitioner liable to pay respondent total and permanent disability benefits. Petitioner contends that respondent is not entitled to such benefits because his illness is not an occupational disease and is not work-related.
Our Ruling
After a perusal of the records, this Court resolved to deny the Petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution dated July 5, 2017 and September 29, 2017, respectively, as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
As correctly found by the CA, the findings of the company-designated doctor on March 26, 2014, that respondent's illness was not work-related and most probably pre-existing, is merely tentative. Instead, credence should be given to the findings dated May 9, 2014 that respondent is permanently unfit in any capacity to resume his duties as a seaman, which is apparent as his condition persisted for more than 240 days. Clearly, respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
Indeed, respondent's condition is not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32 of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). However, Section 20-A (4) of the same POEA-SEC provides that it can be presumed that all illnesses not listed as an occupational disease are work-related. Here, petitioner failed to present evidence to dispute such presumption. Thus, the presumption that respondent's condition is an occupational and/or work-related disease prevails. In any case, respondent was able to establish a reasonable link between his condition and his work; the latter, aggravating whatever pre-existing condition he might have had. 7
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated July 5, 2017 and September 29, 2017, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 148739 are AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Pedro B. Corales concurring; Rollo, pp. 42-59.
2.Rollo, p. 61.
3. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official copy. Missing Footnote Text.
4.Id. at 47.
5.Id. at 46.
6.Rollo, p. 50.
7.Grieg Philippines, Inc. v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 228296, July 26, 2017.