G.R. No. 235730 , March 17, 2021
Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc., Golar Management UK, Ltd. and/or Emmanuel De Vera, Petitioners, vs. Bonores P. Vencer, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Bonores P. Vencer was employed as an able seaman by petitioner Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc. for its foreign principal, Golar Management UK, Ltd., under a 9-month POEA-approved contract. He was declared “fit to work” in his Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME). In June 2014, while on board the vessel “Golar Grand,” respondent was reported missing. During the search, two crew members were found severely injured, having been attacked by respondent with a hammer. The injured crew were hospitalized, and respondent was detained on board until his repatriation on July 7, 2014. Upon arrival in Manila, he was admitted to Cardinal Santos Medical Center and diagnosed with Schizophrenia. He was subsequently treated by the company-designated physician, Dr. Esther Go, from July to November 2014. A Medical Report dated July 10, 2014, confirmed the schizophrenia diagnosis. On July 17, 2014, a company-designated specialist opined that the illness was not work-related, citing multifactorial causes with strong genetic and neurodevelopmental components. On November 6, 2014, Dr. Go advised respondent that further treatment would be at his own expense. Respondent later consulted Dr. Cecilia Sarayno, who also diagnosed him with Schizophrenia. Respondent claimed his illness was work-related, caused by bullying, death threats, and a hostile work environment from fellow crew members, which led to a nervous breakdown and the incident. He filed a claim for total and permanent disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, but the NLRC reversed, finding the illness not work-related. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, prompting petitioners to appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding respondent’s schizophrenia as work-related and thus compensable.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in awarding disability benefits.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ Decision.
1. On compensability: The Court held that respondent’s schizophrenia is compensable. For an illness to be compensable, it is sufficient that the work contributed to, even in a small degree, the development or aggravation of the disease. Respondent substantiated his claim that the inhumane treatment, bullying, and death threats from crew members, which petitioners failed to rebut, triggered or increased the risk of his psychosis. The fact that he was declared fit in his PEME and that the illness manifested during the contract period supports the conclusion that it was work-related. The company-designated physician’s opinion that schizophrenia is genetic was not conclusive, as the work conditions could have aggravated a pre-existing condition. The Court emphasized that the POEA-SEC’s list of occupational diseases is not exhaustive, and non-listed illnesses can be compensable if work-related.
2. On CBA application: The Court upheld the application of the CBA provisions for disability compensation. The CBA was deemed incorporated into respondent’s employment contract. Since respondent’s schizophrenia was deemed a total and permanent disability, and the CBA provided a specific formula for compensation (130% of the base rate multiplied by 60 months for total permanent disability), its application was proper. The award of US$95,949.00 was computed based on this CBA formula.
3. On attorney’s fees: The Court sustained the award of attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the monetary award. This was justified under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, as respondent was compelled to litigate to protect his rightful claim.
Petitioners were ORDERED to jointly and severally pay respondent total and permanent disability benefits of US$95,949.00 (or its Philippine Peso equivalent) and attorney’s fees of 10% of the award.