Marlow Navigation Phils., et.al vs. Heirs of the Late Antonio O. Beato,
G.R. No. 233897, March 9, 2022
Facts:
1. Antonio was a seafarer engaged by Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc., as an Able Seaman on board the vessel MV Geest Trader for a contract period of 10 months.
2. Prior to embarkation, Antonio underwent a Preemployment Medical Examination and was declared "Fit for Sea Duty." He departed the Philippines and joined the vessel on July 14, 2012.
3. Sometime in November 2012, Antonio felt severe abdominal pain, back ache, chest pain and had coughs. Due to the absence of medical facilities at the port clinic, he did not receive the proper medical assistance and did not undergo any laboratory test. He was repatriated to the Philippines on December 1, 2012 due to his medical condition
4. Petitioners referred Antonio to Dr. Orlino F. Hosaka, Jr., the company-designated physician, who, in tum, referred him to the company specialists, particularly a pulmonologist and a cardiologist. Antonio's x-ray results showed that he has negative infiltrates. He was diagnosed with hypertension secondary to upper respiratory tract infection. Antonio was advised by Dr. Hosaka to return for further treatment and examination on January 8, 2013, but he did not
5. Meanwhile, on December 14, 2012, Antonio went home to Aklan and was confined at the St. Gabriel Clinic from December 21 to 22, 2012 where he was diagnosed with functional dyspepsia. He was again confined in the same clinic from January 24, 2013 to February 5, 2013 where he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.
6. After his discharge, Antonio was bedridden at home until he died on April 6, 2013. His death certificate indicated that he died due to cardio respiratory failure with underlying cause of pancreatic cancer.
7. Thus, his surviving heirs filed a complaint for death benefits, payment for burial expenses, reimbursement of medical expenses, airfare expense, damages and attorney's fees, against Marlow on the ground that the cause of his death, pancreatic cancer, is a work-related illness.
Issue:
· Whether or not Antonio complied with the procedures prescribed under the POEA-SEC, particularly Section 20-A(3), paragraph 3
· Whether or not pancreatic cancer is a work-related illness
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
FIRST ISSUE
No. By law, the seafarer's disability benefits claim is governed by Articles 191 to 193, Chapter VI (Disability Benefits) of the Labor Code, in relation to Rule X, Section 2 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code. By contract, it is governed by the employment contract which the seafarer and his employer or local manning agency executes prior to employment, and the applicable Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) deemed incorporated in the employment contract. Lastly, the medical findings of the company-designated physician, the seafarer's personal physician, and those of the mutually-agreed third physician, pursuant to the POEA-SEC, govem. Since Antonio was employed in 2012, Section 20-A of the 2010 POEASEC applies in determining the factual issues of compensability of his pancreatic cancer, and compliance with the POEA-SEC prescribed procedure for disability determination.
Thus, to be entitled to benefits under Section 20-A, the seafarer must show that
1) he suffered an illness;
2) during the term of his employment contract;
3) he complied with the procedures prescribed under Section 20-A of the applicable POEA-SEC;
4) his illness is one of the enumerated occupational diseases or that his illness or injury is otherwise work-related; and
5) he complied with the four conditions enumerated under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC for an occupational disease or a disputably-presumed work-related disease to be compensable, which are as follows:
a. The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein;
b. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks;
c. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; and
d. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.
In this case, the heirs established that Antonio suffered an illness during the term of his employment contract. However, he failed to comply with the procedures prescribed under the POEA-SEC, particularly Section 20-A(3), paragraph 3, which requires the seafarer must submit himself to a postemployment medical examination within three days upon his return. Further, he must report regularly to the company-designated physician specifically on the dates prescribed by the latter. When the seafarer is physically incapacitated to do so, he must submit a written notice to the agency. Otherwise, his failure to do so will result in forfeiture of his right to claim his benefits.
Antonio was repatriated on December 1, 2012. He went to Dr. Hosaka of the Notre Dame Medico-Dental Clinic on December 5, 13 and 18, 2012 who diagnosed him with hypertension secondary to upper respiratory tract infection. When he was asked to report back on January 8, 2013 for a follow-up check-up, not only did Antonio fail to do so, he also failed to notify in writing Marlow or Dr. Hosaka that he had already gone home to Aklan. The only defense the heirs gave was that Antonio's worsening condition prevented him from doing so. The law is clear, however, that all that Antonio or his family had to do was make a written notification of his hospitalization, or his physical incapacity to report back to the company-designated physician. This they did not do.
SECOND ISSUE
The Supreme Court held that pancreatic cancer is not an occupational disease.
Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC only considers two types of cancer as compensable occupational diseases:
(l) cancer of the epithelial of the bladder (papilloma of the bladder); and
(2) cancer, epithellomatous or ulceration of the skin of the corneal surface of the eye due to tar, pitch, bitumen, mineral oil or paraffin, or compound product or residue of these substances.
Case law has held time and time again that for a disease not included in the list of compensable diseases to be compensable, the seafarer still has to establish, by substantial evidence that his illness is or was work-related. As stated, the disputable presumption does not amount to an automatic grant of compensation. In this case, Antonio failed to prove that his illness is compensable as he failed to satisfy all the conditions under Section 32-A.
Firstly, Antonio or his heirs did not enumerate his specific duties as an Able Seaman nor did they list down the specific tasks which Antonio performed on a daily basis. Secondly, they did not show that his duties or tasks caused, contributed to the development of, or aggravated his pancreatic cancer. There was no mention of the specific substances or chemicals which he claimed· he was exposed to during his employment contract; how these chemicals could have caused his pancreatic cancer; or measures that Marlow did or did not take to control the hazards. His heirs merely presented general averments and allegations that his "constant exposure to hazards such as chemicals and the varying temperature, coupled by stressful tasks in his employment caused the aggravation of [his] medical condition."
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment