Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. v. Garces

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 211908. June 4, 2014.]

SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES, INC., DS-SCANMAR CREW SERVICES GMBH, CORAZON INGUILLO, LORRAINE BANTA, MARLEN GUERRERO, petitioners, vs. JANITH T. GARCES, for and on behalf of JOSELITO M. GARCES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated04 June 2014which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 211908 SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES, INC., DS-SCANMAR CREW SERVICES GMBH, CORAZON INGUILLO, LORRAINE BANTA, MARLEN GUERRERO,petitionersv. JANITH T. GARCES, for and on behalf of JOSELITO M. GARCES,respondent.

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, assailing the 6 January 2014 Decision 1 rendered by the Fourteenth Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 131116. In its assailed decision, the appellate court affirmed with modification the Decision dated 28 February 2013 and the Resolution dated 30 May 2013 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC-NCR Case No. OFW (M) 03-04840-12. Petitioners Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc., DS Scanmar Crew Services GMBH, Corazon Inguillo, Lorraine Banta and Marlen Guerrero were ordered to jointly and severally pay respondent Janith T. Garces the amount of US$60,000.00 and US$2,310.00 respectively, representing permanent disability benefits and sickness allowance of the deceased Joselito M. Garces.

In a Resolution dated 26 March 2014, the appellate court refused to reconsider its earlier decision.

The Facts

Petitioner DS Scanmar Crew Services GMBH (SCS) is a foreign juridical entity engaged in maritime business. It is represented in the Philippines by its manning agent, and co-petitioner herein, Scanmar Maritime Services (SMS), Inc., a corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws.

On 27 May 2011, respondent Joselito M. Garces (Joselito) was hired by SCS thru its manning agent, SMS, as an Able Seaman. His employment was to run for a period of six months to commence on 26 June 2011 when he boarded the vessel and he was to receive, inter alia, a basic monthly salary of US$693.00 a month. DCScaT

Prior to the execution of the contract, Joselito underwent a thorough Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) and after compliance therewith, he was certified as "fit to work" by the company designated physician.

On 12 October 2011, while on board the vessel DS Power, Joselito complained of pain in the hypogastric and low back area, weight loss and passing out small-caliber stool with episode of fresh blood. After he was examined by the ship doctor, Joselito was diagnosed with H. Pylori Infection, Colonic Mass and was prescribed medication.

On 15 October 2011, he was repatriated for further evaluation. Upon arrival in Manila, Joselito was examined by the company designated physician who referred him to a gastro-enterologist and a surgeon. A CT Scan of his abdomen revealed diffuse wall thickening of the sigmoid colon. Serum CEA determination revealed elevated results. The histopath showed poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with mucin secretion. He was diagnosed with colorectal cancer and was recommended to undergo surgery.

On 23 April 2012, Joselito died.

The company designated physician opined that Joselito's condition was not work related.

On 26 March 2012, respondent Janith T. Garces, the surviving spouse of Joselito, filed a complaint for constructive dismissal against petitioners before the Labor Arbiter. In her Position Paper, respondent insisted that Joselito's illness was work-related and lamented that they did not receive any financial assistance from the petitioner compelling them to personally shoulder Joselito's medical treatment. For lack of financial means, however, respondent was constrained to discharge her husband from the hospital on 11 April 2012 and shortly thereafter or on 23 April 2012, Joselito died. Respondent prayed that Joselito's illness be declared work-related and therefore compensable. She likewise sought for the payment of Joselito's salary for the unexpired portion of the contract, sickness allowance, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

Rebutting respondent's complaint, petitioners countered that Joselito's illness was not work-related as opined by the company designated physician and therefore not compensable. Asserting that they were in good faith in dealing with Joselito, petitioners pointed out that they even paid his sickness allowance and offered him financial assistance in the amount of US$20,000.00. Petitioners maintained that the manner of determining liability and the extent of the liability of the employer in case of an injury or illness of the seafarer is set forth in the POEA Standard Employment Contract, and it was stated therein that the employer-vessel owner/principal shall be liable for disability benefits to the seafarer when his illness is declared by company designated physician as work-related. Herein, the company designated physician declared Joselito's illness as not work-related.

After submission of the required position papers, the Labor Arbiter, rendered a Decision dated 22 August 2012 in favor of respondent, holding that Joselito's illness was compensable but denied respondent's claim for moral and exemplary damages. The Labor Arbiter disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the [petitioners], to pay [respondent] jointly and severally the amount of US$60,000,000.00 representing his permanent disability benefits; medical reimbursement of Php286,029.96; US$2,772.00 as payment of 120 days sickness allowance and ten (10%) of the total award [as] attorney's fees or its equivalent in the Philippine [Peso] at the time of the payment. 2

On appeal, the NLRC affirmed with modification the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. The fallo of the NLRC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated August 22, 2012 is MODIFIED and that [respondent] is awarded permanent disability benefits in the sum of US$60,000.00, and sickness allowance of US$2,772.00. EScHDA

The award of medical reimbursement and attorney's fees STANDS. 3

Ascribing grave abuse of discretion, petitioners elevated the adverse NLRC ruling to the Court of Appeals. With the finding that Joselito's illness was not work-related, petitioners argued it is imperative for respondent to prove by competent and substantial evidence that there is a causal connection between the nature of seafarer's employment and his illness. The medical reports presented by respondent are bereft of any medical finding or assessment declaring Joselito's illness as work-related or work-aggravated. In the absence of substantial evidence to dispute the findings of the company designated physician, petitioners asserted that the claim for full disability compensation should be dismissed.

On 6 January 2014, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision affirming with modification the ruling of the NLRC. The appellate court ruled that to establish compensability of non-occupational disease, reasonable proof of work-connection and not direct causal relation is required. It held that it is enough that the work has contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the seafarer's disease. In this case, it was proven that the seafarer's diet and environment onboard DS Power further aggravated his medical condition. In refusing to adopt the findings of the company designated physician, the appellate court further held that his assessments are not binding on courts. The appellate court disposed in this wise:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 28 February 2013 and Resolution dated 30 May 2013 of the National Labor Relations Commission (First Division) in NLRC LAC No. 10-000877-12; NLRC NCR Case No. OFW (M) 03-04840-12 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award to [respondent] of sickness allowance should be US$2,310.00 instead of US$2,772.00. Costs against petitioners. 4

Similarly ill-fated was petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the appellate court in a Resolution dated 26 March 2014.

The Issues

Unyielding, petitioners are now before this Court via this instant Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution while raising the following issues:

I.

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS, REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW IN AWARDING FULL DISABILITY BENEFITS AND DISREGARDING OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT SEAFARER'S ILLNESS IS NOT WORK-RELATED. FURTHER, RESPONDENT FAILED TO SHOW REASONABLE WORK-CONNECTION BETWEEN SEAFARER'S ILLNESS AND HIS NATURE OF WORK;

II.

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS, REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW IN INVOKING THE 120-DAY RULING. MERE INABILITY TO WORK FOR MORE THAN 120 DAYS DOES NOT OF ITSELF ENTITLE RESPONDENT TO PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS. THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SANTIAGO V. PACBASIN, G.R. NO. 194677, 24 APRIL 2012[;] [and]

III.

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES IN FAVOR OF [RESPONDENT] DESPITE JUSTIFIED REFUSAL TO PAY FULL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS. 5THacES

The Court's Ruling

The Court resolves to deny the petition.

Entitlement of seamen on overseas work to disability benefits is a matter governed, not only by medical findings, but by law and by contract. The material statutory provisions are Articles 191 to 193 under Chapter VI (Disability Benefits) of the Labor Code, in relation to Rule X of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book IV of the Labor Code. By contract, the POEA-SEC, as provided under Department Order No. 4, series of 2000 of the Department of Labor and Employment, and the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) bind the seaman and his employer to each other. 6

Section 20 (B), paragraph 3 of the 2000 POEA-SEC 7 reads:

Section 20-B. Compensation and Benefits for Injury or Illness. —

The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

6. In case of permanent total or partial disability of the seafarer caused by either injury or illness the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance with the schedule of benefits enumerated in Section 32 of this Contract. Computation of his benefits arising from an illness or disease shall be governed by the rates and the rules of compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease was contracted.

For disability to be compensable under Section 20 (B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, two elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract. In other words, to be entitled to compensation and benefits under this provision, it is not sufficient to establish that the seafarer's illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled; it must also be shown that there is a causal connection between the seafarer's illness or injury and the work for which he had been contracted. 8

The 2000 POEA-SEC defines "work-related injury" as "injury(ies) resulting in disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment" and "work-related illness" as "any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this contract with the conditions set therein satisfied." 9

For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied:

1. The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein;

2. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks;

3. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it;

4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer. 10

The ultimate question that needs to be addressed in the case at bar is whether or not the illness which caused the repatriation of Joselito and his eventual death is an occupational disease and thus compensable under the circumstances.

We rule in the affirmative. CSHDTE

In Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. v. Villamater, 11 which is in four-square with the case at bench, the Court made a pronouncement that the seafarer's colon cancer was, at the very least, aggravated by his working conditions, viz.:

Colon cancer, also known as colorectal cancer or large bowel cancer, includes cancerous growths in the colon, rectum and appendix. With 655,000 deaths worldwide per year, it is the fifth most common form of cancer in the United States of America and the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the Western World. Colorectal cancers arise from adenomatous polyps in the colon. These mushroom-shaped growths are usually benign, but some develop into cancer over time. Localized colon cancer is usually diagnosed through colonoscopy. SDAaTC

Tumors of the colon and rectum are growths arising from the inner wall of the large intestine. Benign tumors of the large intestine are called polyps. Malignant tumors of the large intestine are called cancers. Benign polyps can be easily removed during colonoscopy and are not life-threatening. If benign polyps are not removed from the large intestine, they can become malignant (cancerous) over time. Most of the cancers of the large intestine are believed to have developed as polyps. Colorectal cancer can invade and damage adjacent tissues and organs. Cancer cells can also break away and spread to other parts of the body (such as liver and lung) where new tumors form. The spread of colon cancer to distant organs is called metastasis of the colon cancer. Once metastasis has occurred in colorectal cancer, a complete cure of the cancer is unlikely.

Globally, colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer in males and the fourth leading cause of cancer in females. The frequency of colorectal cancer varies around the world. It is common in the Western world and is rare in Asia and in Africa. In countries where the people have adopted western diets, the incidence of colorectal cancer is increasing.

Factors that increase a person's risk of colorectal cancer include high fat intake, a family history of colorectal cancer and polyps, the presence of polyps in the large intestine, and chronic ulcerative colitis.

Diets high in fat are believed to predispose humans to colorectal cancer. In countries with high colorectal cancer rates, the fat intake by the population is much higher than in countries with low cancer rates. It is believed that the breakdown products of fat metabolism lead to the formation of cancer-causing chemicals (carcinogens). Diets high in vegetables and high-fiber foods may rid the bowel of these carcinogens and help reduce the risk of cancer.

A person's genetic background is an important factor in colon cancer risk. Among first-degree relatives of colon-cancer patients, the lifetime risk of developing colon cancer is 18%. Even though family history of colon cancer is an important risk factor, majority (80%) of colon cancers occur sporadically in patients with no family history of it. Approximately 20% of cancers are associated with a family history of colon cancer. And 5% of colon cancers are due to hereditary colon cancer syndromes. Hereditary colon cancer syndromes are disorders where affected family members have inherited cancer-causing genetic defects from one or both of the parents.

In the case of Villamater, it is manifest that the interplay of age, hereditary, and dietary factors contributed to the development of colon cancer. By the time he signed his employment contract on June 4, 2002, he was already 58 years old, having been born on October 5, 1943, an age at which the incidence of colon cancer is more likely. He had a familial history of colon cancer, with a brother who succumbed to death and an uncle who underwent surgery for the same illness. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found his illness to be compensable for permanent and total disability, because they found that his dietary provisions while at sea increased his risk of contracting colon cancer because he had no choice of what to eat on board except those provided on the vessels and these consisted mainly of high-fat, high-cholesterol, and low-fiber foods. 12

Prescinding from the foregoing, it is highly possible that Joselito's colorectal cancer was aggravated by the nature of his job and given his dietary condition while on board the vessel. Corollarily, as we have ruled in Leonis Navigation Co., Inc., it is safe to presume that the nature of the living condition of Joselito which included high-fat diet while on board DS Power, caused his illness or at the very least aggravated any pre-existing condition he might have had, and is thus work related. As succinctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals while resonating the findings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter:

[Joselito's] diet and environment onboard the vessel DS Power further aggravated his medical condition. It bears stressing that the company-designated physician stated that [Joselito] has cancer of a part of the large intestine (rectosigmoid), and that the risk factors are dietary and genetic predisposition.

xxx xxx xxx

In the instant case, [Joselito] was subjected to poor dietary provisions while onboard the vessel, such that he had limited choices of the food to eat, mostly meat, low-fiber foods, and those high in cholesterol and fat. Clearly, he had no choice on what to eat onboard the vessel. Diets high in fat and cholesterol (especially from animal sources) have been found to cause colon cancer. Low-fiber diets have also been associated with increased risk. Research has shown that environment can play a big part in colon cancer development. Where you live, who's around you, your occupation, and even when you work may all influence your risk of developing colon cancer. 13

Needless to say, factual findings of labor officials, who possess the expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, have conclusive effect on this Court provided substantial evidence support such factual findings. More so in this case, where the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC coincide, and the Court of Appeals sustained such findings. 14

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring. Rollo, pp. 40-54.

2. Id. at 43.

3. Id. at 41.

4. Id. at 54.

5. Id. at 9.

6. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 186180, 22 March 2010, 616 SCRA 362, 372-373.

7. Department Order No. 4, s. of 2000 is entitled Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels.

8. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. NLRC, supra note 6 at 373-374.

9. Id. at 374.

10. Nisda v. Sea Service Maritime Agency, G.R. No. 179177, 23 July 2009, 593 SCRA 668, 695.

11. G.R. No. 179169, 3 March 2010, 614 SCRA 182.

12. Id. at 196-199.

13. Rollo, pp. 49-50.

14. Philippine Military Veterans Security and Investigation Agency v. Court of Appeals, 516 Phil. 530, 536 (2006).