GR 184917; (March, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 184917 /G.R. No. 184932 March 13, 2017
JESSIE M. DOROTEO (Deceased), represented by LUCIDA D. HERMIS, Petitioner, vs. PHILIMARE INCORPORATED, et al., Respondents. (Consolidated Cases)
FACTS
Jessie Doroteo was hired by Philimare as an engineer. During his contract, he experienced throat pain and was eventually medically repatriated. In the Philippines, a company-designated physician recommended procedures for suspected laryngeal cancer. Doroteo, however, claimed the physician demanded payment for treatment, leading him to seek independent surgery where he was declared unfit for work. He filed a complaint for disability benefits. Philimare contested, arguing the illness was not work-related but caused by Doroteo’s smoking and drinking, and that he concealed a pre-existing condition. Doroteo died during the proceedings. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC dismissed his claims, finding the cancer not work-related. The Court of Appeals affirmed the non-compensability but awarded moral and exemplary damages due to the company physician’s alleged refusal to treat without payment.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether Doroteo’s laryngeal cancer is compensable. The secondary issue is the propriety of the award of damages by the Court of Appeals.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied Doroteo’s petition and granted Philimare’s, deleting the award of damages. For an illness to be compensable, the seafarer must prove work-relation through substantial evidence. The Court ruled Doroteo failed to do so. Medical literature established laryngeal cancer is primarily linked to smoking and alcohol, not engine room conditions. His very short employment period (less than three months before symptoms) further negated work-connection, as cancer development typically requires prolonged exposure. His failure to report to the company-designated physician for assessment also barred his claim, as it prevented a proper evaluation of his disability.
Regarding damages, the Court found no legal basis for the CA’s award. The claim that the company physician refused treatment without payment was an allegation not substantiated by clear evidence. The physician’s recommendation for diagnostic procedures was standard, and Doroteo’s unilateral decision to seek outside treatment severed the legal process for claiming disability benefits. Without proof of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence by the employer, awards for moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees, cannot stand. The labor tribunals committed no grave abuse of discretion in their factual findings.