GR 123619; (June, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123619; June 8, 2000
SEAGULL SHIPMANAGEMENT AND TRANSPORT, INC., and DOMINION INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and BENJAMIN T. TUAZON, respondents.
FACTS
Benjamin Tuazon was deployed by Seagull Shipmanagement as a radio officer on board MV Pixy Maru in March 1991. Prior to deployment, he underwent a medical examination by the company’s accredited clinic. Having undergone heart surgery with a pacemaker insertion in 1986, he was required to and did submit a certification from his cardiologist stating he could perform normal activities, after which he was declared fit to work. In December 1991, while on board, Tuazon suffered coughing and shortness of breath, leading to hospitalization in Japan. Diagnosed as needing open-heart surgery, he was repatriated to the Philippines, where he underwent the surgery at his own expense.
Tuazon filed a complaint with the POEA for sickness and disability benefits. The POEA awarded him US$2,200 for 120 days of sickness benefits and US$15,000 for permanent disability. The NLRC affirmed this decision on appeal. Petitioners Seagull and its insurer then filed this petition, initially under Rule 45 but treated by the Supreme Court as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, arguing Tuazon misrepresented his health and his condition was not work-related.
ISSUE
Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the award of sickness and permanent disability benefits to Tuazon?
RULING
No, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s decision. On procedural grounds, while the petition was technically defective for not filing a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC first, the Court opted to resolve it on substantive merits in the interest of justice. On the merits, the Court upheld the factual findings of the POEA and NLRC. The records established that the company’s physician was aware of Tuazon’s pacemaker, as he was required to submit a cardiologist’s clearance, negating claims of concealment.
Crucially, under the governing POEA Standard Employment Contract for seafarers, compensability of an illness does not require proof that it is work-connected. It is sufficient that the illness occurred during the term of the contract, which Tuazon’s did. The Court cited jurisprudence stating that even a pre-existing condition does not bar compensation if the employment contributed to its aggravation. Petitioners themselves admitted his work exposed him to climates that could trigger heart issues. Therefore, the award of benefits under the contract’s stipulated terms was proper. The employer takes the employee as found and assumes the attendant risks.