FIRST DIVISION On September 24, 2012, Joemar filed against the respondents a complaint for

total and permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, reimbursement of medical

and hospital expenses, as well as moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees
[G.R. No. 228550. July 28, 2021.]
before the labor arbiter. Joemar claimed that his health condition was not restored, and
that he was not able to secure a gainful employment after his hospitalization. On the
JOEMAR BABIERA BACABAC, petitioner, vs. NYK-FIL other hand, the respondents countered that Joemar's illness is not compensable as the
SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC. and NYK SHIPMANAGEMENT company physician declared it not work-related. On April 15, 2013, the labor arbiter
PTE. LTD., respondents. awarded Joemar full disability benefits and sickness allowance because his illness is
presumed to be work-related, 2 thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
DECISION rendered ordering NYK-Fil Shipmanagement, Inc., and/or NYK
Shipmanagement Pte. Ltd. to pay complainant Joemar B. Bacabac
the amount of SIXTY TWO (sic) THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED
FIFTY SIX US DOLLARS (US$62,256.00) representing full
M.V. LOPEZ, J p: disability benefits and sickness wages, plus ten percent thereof as
and for attorney's fees.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court assails the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated April 27, 2016 in CA-G.R. All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SP No. 134377, which affirmed the dismissal of the seafarer's complaint for disability SO ORDERED. 3
benefits and sickness allowance.
Dissatisfied, the respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations
THE ANTECEDENTS Commission (NLRC). On November 29, 2013, the NLRC reversed the arbiter's
On November 25, 2011, NYK-FIL Shipmanagement, Inc., a local manning findings and dismissed Joemar's complaint for lack of merit. The NLRC noted that the
agency acting for and in behalf of its principal NYK Shipmanagement Pte. Ltd. company physician was categorical that Joemar's ailment was not related to his
(respondents), hired Joemar Babiera Bacabac (Joemar) as an oiler. On December 8, employment. Further, Joemar failed to establish the reasonable connection between his
2011, the respondents deployed Joemar on board the vessel MV IKI for a period of illness and nature of work, 4 to wit: cDCEIA
nine months. On March 11, 2012, Joemar felt dizzy and suffered abdominal pain while WHEREFORE, respondent's appeal is GRANTED. The
performing his duties inside the engine room. Joemar reported the matter to the Second Decision of Labor Arbiter Jaime M. Reyno dated April 15, 2013 is
Officer and was given medicines. Yet, the symptoms persisted and Joemar lost his REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one is entered dismissing
appetite. When the vessel arrived at the port in Chile, Joemar vomited blood and was the complaint for lack of merit.
brought to the nearest clinic. Thereafter, Joemar was transferred to Clinica Sanatorio
Aleman. Thereat, it was found out that Joemar's kidneys were not functioning well. SO ORDERED.
Thus, Joemar had dialysis thrice to restore his normal kidney function. Joemar also Unsuccessful at a reconsideration, 5 Joemar elevated the case to the Court of
underwent surgery to remove stones in his bile duct. Joemar was confined for more Appeals (CA) through a Petition for Certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 134377.
than two months or from March 15, 2012 to May 19, 2012. On April 27, 2016, the CA affirmed the NLRC's judgment, viz.:
On May 21, 2012, Joemar was medically repatriated and was immediately However, even if the fact is clear that petitioner contracted
brought to Manila Doctor's Hospital. The doctors performed duodenostomy, a surgical an illness during the effectivity of his contract of employment with
procedure to make an opening in Joemar's small intestine, followed by an endoscopy. private respondents, it does not necessarily mean that his illness was
On May 23, 2012, the company-designated physician diagnosed Joemar with Severe work-related. Petitioner still has the burden to sufficiently show
Acute Cholangitis, which is an inflammation in the bile duct and declared his medical the causal connection between his illness and the work which he
condition not work-related. On June 19, 2012, Joemar was discharged from the had been contracted for. This is so especially because petitioner's
hospital. The respondents shouldered all the treatment costs.
 illness is not one of those occupational illnesses under Section 32- from (1) injury or illness that manifests or is discovered during the term of the
A of the POEA-SEC. x x x. seafarer's contract, which is usually while the seafarer is on board the vessel or (2)
illness that manifests or is discovered after the contract, which is usually after the
xxx xxx xxx
seafarer has disembarked from the vessel. The Court then laid down the following set
Petitioner failed to discharge such burden here. In our of rules:
examination of the record, We find no sufficient evidence that
x x x. Section 20 (A) applies only if the seafarer suffers from an
supports the claim of petitioner that his illness was work-related. x x
illness or injury during the term of his contract, i.e., while he is
x.
employed. Section 20 (A) of the POEA-SEC clearly states the
Petitioner likewise failed to specify the nature of his work, parameters of its applicability:
the working conditions, the risks attendant to the nature of his work
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND
to which he was allegedly exposed, as well as how and to what
BENEFITS. —
degree the nature of his work caused or contributed to his alleged
medical condition. A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR
INJURY OR ILLNESS
In the absence of substantial evidence, We cannot just
presume that petitioner's job as an oiler caused his illness or that it The liabilities of the employer when the
aggravated any pre-existing condition he might have had. seafarer suffers work-related injury or
illness during the term of his contract are as
Considering that petitioner's illness was not work-related,
follows:
then petitioner is not entitled to permanent total disability benefits.
xxx xxx xxx
Besides, x x x, the company-designated physician had
declared that petitioner "is not considered permanently unfit for sea 4. Those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this
duty." The findings of a company-designated physician that an Contract are disputably presumed as work-
employee, such as petitioner here, was fit to work should be given related.
credence.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
The disputable presumption of work-relatedness
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. provided in paragraph 4 above arises only if or when the
seafarer suffers from an illness or injury during the term of the
SO ORDERED. 6 (Emphases Supplied)
contract and the resulting disability is not listed in Section 32 of
Joemar sought reconsideration but was denied. Hence, this petition. the POEA-SEC. That paragraph 4 above provides for a disputable
presumption is because the injury or illness is suffered while
Joemar insists that he is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits and
working at the vessel. Thus, or stated differently, it is only when the
sickness allowance since he contracted his illness during the effectivity of his
illness or injury manifests itself during the voyage and the resulting
employment contract and is presumed work-related.
disability is not listed in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC will the
THE RULING OF THE COURT disputable presumption kick in. This is a reasonable reading
inasmuch as, at the time the illness or injury manifests itself, the
The petition is meritorious. seafarer is in the vessel, that is, under the direct supervision and
In resolving claims for disability benefits, it is imperative to integrate control of the employer, through the ship captain.
the POEA-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) with every agreement xxx xxx xxx
between a seafarer and his employer. 7 Joemar's employment contract with the
respondents was executed on November 25, 2011 and is covered by the 2010 In instances where the illness manifests itself or is
Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of discovered after the term of the seafarer's contract, the illness
Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships. 8 In Ventis Maritime Corporation v. may either be (1) an occupational illness listed under Section 32-
Salenga, 9 the Court clarified that a seafarer's complaints for disability benefits arise A of the POEA-SEC, in which case, it is categorized as a work-
 related illness if it complies with the conditions stated in Section occupational disease. As such, it becomes incumbent upon the respondents to prove
32-A, or (2) an illness not listed as an occupational illness under otherwise. 10 Notably, the respondents relied on the company physician's opinion that
Section 32-A but is reasonably linked to the work of the seafarer. Joemar's illness was not work-related. Yet, the Court finds that the company doctor's
medical report is inadequate to overcome the presumption. It bears emphasis that the
For the first type, the POEA-SEC has clearly defined a
company physician's assessment must be complete and definite for the purpose of
work-related illness as "any sickness as a result of an
ascertaining the degree of the seafarer's disability benefits. The assessment must truly
occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this Contract
reflect the extent of the sickness or injuries of the seafarer and his or her capacity to
with the conditions set therein satisfied." What this means is that
resume work as such. 11 DHESca
to be entitled to disability benefits, a seafarer must show
compliance with the conditions under Section 32-A, as follows: Here, the company doctor's report only indicated the diagnosis for Severe
Acute Cholangitis — or the inflammation or swelling of the bile duct. Cholangitis is a
1. The seafarer's work must involve the risks
type of liver disease. When the bile ducts get inflamed, bile can back up into the liver
described therein;
and this can lead to liver damage. Acute Cholangitis happens suddenly and can be
2. The disease was contracted as a result of the caused by bacterial infection, gallstones, blockages, and tumor. There are also
seafarer's exposure to the described risks; environmental causes like infections, smoking and exposure to
chemicals. 12 Joemar's Severe Acute Cholangitis suggests that he did not respond well
3. The disease was contracted within a period of
to the initial medical treatment and have organ dysfunction in at least one of the
exposure and under such other factors necessary to
following organs/systems: cardiovascular, nervous system, respiratory system, renal
contract it; and
system, and hepatic system. 13 The Court, however, is at a loss on the cause, gravity,
4. There was no notorious negligence on the part and extent of Joemar's ailment. The medical report did not contain any explanation
of the seafarer. how the company physician arrived at his conclusion that the illness is not work-
related. There is no other document submitted to support such finding. Worse, the
As to the second type of illness — one that is not listed as company doctor made such report only two days after Joemar was medically
an occupational disease in Section 32-A — x x x the seafarer may repatriated. More telling is Joemar's continued hospital confinement for one whole
still claim provided that he suffered a disability occasioned by a month after such declaration.
disease contracted on account of or aggravated by working
conditions. For this illness, "[i]t is sufficient that there is a To reiterate, what the POEA-SEC requires is for the company physician to
reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee justify the assessment using the medical findings he had gathered during his treatment
and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work of the seafarer. A bare claim that the illness is not work-related, or that the seafarer is
may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, fit for sea duties is insufficient. 14 The Court will not hesitate to strike down an
aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have incomplete, and doubtful medical report of the company physician and disregard the
had." Operationalizing this, to prove this reasonable linkage, it is improvidently issued assessment. 15 Considering that the company physician's
imperative that the seafarer must prove the requirements under medical evaluation of the seafarer fell short of the parameters provided by law and
Section 32-A: the risks involved in his work; his illness was jurisprudence, Joemar is deemed totally and permanently disabled as of the date of the
contracted as a result of his exposure to the risks; the disease was expiration of the 120-day period counted from his repatriation. There could no longer
contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors be any issue on whether his illness is work-related or not. 16 Thus, Joemar properly
necessary to contract it; and he was not notoriously negligent. filed his complaint for payment of permanent and total disability benefits against the
(Emphases Supplied) respondents on September 24, 2012 or after the expiration of the 120-day period from
his repatriation. Corollarily, Joemar has no obligation to secure the opinion of his own
In this case, Joemar's employment contract is from December 8, 2011 to doctor. A seafarer's compliance with such procedure presupposes that the company
September 8, 2012 or for a period of nine months. On March 11, 2012, Joemar physician came up with a valid assessment as to his fitness or unfitness to work before
suffered pain and symptoms while he is on board the vessel. On May 21, 2012, Joemar the expiration of the 120-day or 240-day periods. Absent a valid certification from the
was medically repatriated and was diagnosed with Severe Acute Cholangitis two days company physician, the seafarer had nothing to contest and the law steps in to
after disembarkation. Clearly, Joemar's illness manifested or was conclusively consider his disability as total and permanent. 17
discovered during the term of his contract. Applying the rules in Ventis case, Joemar's
medical condition is disputably presumed as work-related although not listed as an
 Similarly, Joemar is entitled to sickness allowance. If the seafarer suffers 8. See POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2010, dated October 26, 2010.
from an illness or injury during the term of the contract, he or she shall also receive
sickness allowance from his employer in an amount equivalent to his basic wage 9. G.R. No. 238578, June 8, 2020.
computed from the time he signed off until he is declared fit to work or the degree of 10. Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. Heirs of Buenaflor, G.R. No. 227447, June 23, 2020.
disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician. The period within
which the seafarer shall be entitled to his sickness allowance shall not exceed 120 11. Chan v. Magsaysay Maritime Corp., G.R. No. 239055, March 11, 2020.
days. 18 Given that the company physician failed to give a valid medical assessment,
the labor arbiter correctly awarded Joemar sickness allowance absent proof that this 12. What is Cholangitis and How's it treated, published February 21, 2019,
benefit has been paid. On the other hand, the arbiter properly denied the prayer for healthline.com/health/cholangitis, last accessed: June 18, 2021.
reimbursement of medical expenses and damages absent substantial evidence. As 13. Acute Cholangitis — an update, published February 15, 2018,
intimated earlier, the respondents shouldered all the treatment costs. Finally, the award https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5823698/, last accessed: June
of attorney's fees is warranted since Joemar was forced to litigate and incur expenses 18, 2021.
to protect his interests. 19
14. Phil-Man Marine Agency, Inc. v. Dedace, Jr., 835 Phil. 536 (2018).
In sum, the Court holds that the labor arbiter correctly granted Joemar
US$60,000.00 permanent total disability benefits, US$2,256.00 sickness allowance, 15. Olidana v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc., 772 Phil. 234 (2015).
and attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary awards. The
total award shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum computed from 16. Phil-Man Marine Agency, Inc. v. Dedace, Jr., supra.
the date of finality of this decision until it is fully paid. 20 17. Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, 702 Phil. 717, 738 (2013).
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals'
18. Javier v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., 738 Phil. 374 (2014).
Decision dated April 27, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 134377 is REVERSED. The Labor
Arbiter's judgment dated April 15, 2013 is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION in 19. Phil-Man Marine Agency, Inc. v. Dedace, Jr., supra.
that the total monetary award shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum, from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. TEHIaD 20. Dusol v. Lazo, G.R. No. 200555, January 20, 2021; citing Nacar v. Gallery Frames,
716 Phil. 267 (2013).
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C.J., Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier and J.Y. Lopez, JJ., concur.
||| (Bacabac v. NYK-Fil Shipmanagement, Inc., G.R. No. 228550, [July 28, 2021])

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 38-47, penned by CA Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, with the
concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Manuel M. Barrios.
2. Id. at 68-75.
3. Id. at 75.
4. Id. at 53-64.
5. Id. at 65-66.
6. Id. at 44-47.
7. C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Legal Heirs of the late Godofredo Repiso, 780
Phil. 645, 665-666 (2016).