G.R. No. 185412 ; November 16, 2011
GILBERT QUIZORA, Petitioner, vs. DENHOLM CREW MANAGEMENT (PHILIPPINES), INC., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Gilbert Quizora was hired by respondent Denholm Crew Management (Philippines), Inc., a manning agency, to work as a messman on board the vessels of its foreign principal, Denklav Maritime Services, Ltd. His employment was governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which provided that his contractual work was terminated upon the expiration of each contract, with the duration of sea service being nine months. His last assignment was from November 4, 1999 to July 16, 2000 on board the “MV Leopard.” After this contract expired, he was lined up for another assignment but was later disqualified and declared unfit for sea duty after being medically diagnosed with “venous duplex scan (lower extremities) deep venous insufficiency, bilateral femoral and superficial femoral veins and the (L) popliteal vein,” or varicose veins. Petitioner demanded disability benefits, separation pay, and reimbursement of medical expenses from respondent, but his demands were denied. He filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter (LA), which dismissed his complaint for lack of merit. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA and ordered respondent to pay disability compensation of US$60,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the NLRC Resolutions and reinstated the LA’s decision, prompting petitioner to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the respondent has the burden of proving that the petitioner’s illness is not work-related.
2. Whether the petitioner’s illness (varicose veins) is work-related.
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to disability benefits.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s decision.
1. On the Burden of Proof: The Court ruled that the 1996 POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), not the 2000 POEA-SEC, governed the petitioner’s employment as his last contract ended in July 2000, before the 2000 POEA-SEC took effect. The 1996 POEA-SEC did not contain the disputable presumption that illnesses not listed in its schedule of occupational diseases are work-related. Therefore, the burden of proof rested on the petitioner to establish that his varicose veins were work-related. The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the respondent had the burden to rebut a presumption, as such presumption only exists under the 2000 POEA-SEC, which was inapplicable.
2. On Work-Relatedness of the Illness: The Court found that the petitioner failed to discharge his burden of proving that his varicose veins were work-related. His mere claim that his employment caused his ailment did not constitute substantial evidence. The Court noted that varicose veins is a common disease that can be acquired genetically or due to lack of exercise, and it is not listed as an occupational disease under Presidential Decree No. 626. There was no proof that the disease was caused or its risk increased by his working conditions as a messman. The fact that he had no other employer did not automatically impute the illness to his employment with the respondent.
3. On Entitlement to Disability Benefits: The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to disability benefits. He failed to prove that his varicose veins resulted in a permanent disability that rendered him incapable of performing his usual work. His medical diagnosis did not state that his illness was equivalent to a total and permanent disability. Furthermore, his employment contracts were fixed-term and terminated upon completion, and there was no showing that his condition was permanent or that he lost his earning capacity permanently.