G.R. No. 191563 ; June 20, 2012
LEGAL HEIRS OF THE LATE EDWIN B. DEAUNA, represented by his wife, MRS. ARLINA DEAUNA, Petitioners, vs. FIL-STAR MARITIME CORPORATION, GREGORIO ORTEGA, CAPT. VICTOR S. MILLALOS and GRANDSLAM ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, Respondents.

FACTS

Edwin Deauna was hired as Chief Engineer by respondents through local manning agency Fil-Star Maritime Corporation for its foreign principal. He boarded the vessel M/V Sanko Stream on August 1, 2004, after being declared “fit to work” in his Pre-employment Medical Examination (PEME). In October 2004, while on board, he experienced abdominal pains and was diagnosed with kidney stones in Brazil, after which he resumed work. He was repatriated on April 3, 2005. Respondents claimed repatriation was due to a personal request to attend his daughter’s graduation, while petitioners asserted it was due to “body weakness and head heaviness.”
Shortly after repatriation, Edwin was diagnosed with Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM), a malignant brain tumor. The company-designated physician opined that the illness’s etiology was unknown and that it was likely pre-existing but not detectable by ordinary PEME. Edwin passed away, and his heirs claimed death benefits under the POEA Contract and the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The Voluntary Arbitrator awarded benefits, but the Court of Appeals reversed, absolving respondents from liability.

ISSUE

Whether the heirs of Edwin Deauna are entitled to death benefits under the POEA Contract and the CBA.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the Voluntary Arbitrator’s award. The legal logic centers on the presumption of compensability and work-relatedness under the POEA-SEC and the applicable CBA. For an illness to be compensable, it is not required that the nature of the employment be the sole reason for the illness; it is sufficient that the work contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease. The Court emphasized that the precise medical cause of the illness is not significant, and the possibility that the disease was pre-existing is immaterial.
The Court found that the strenuous duties of a Chief Engineer, involving responsibility for the vessel’s entire engineering operations, management of fuel and lubricants, and readiness for inspections and emergencies, constituted sufficient work-connection. The conditions of his work, including potential exposure to hazardous substances and significant stress, could have aggravated any pre-existing condition. The company physician’s report itself noted the patient was repatriated due to body weakness, and a specialist logically surmised the tumor had been growing for months, which period coincided with his employment. Therefore, the presumption of work-relatedness was not successfully rebutted by the respondents. The award of US$121,000.00 in death benefits under the CBA was reinstated.