G.R. No. 192442, August 9, 2017
BENEDICT N. ROMANA, PETITIONER, V. MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION / EDUARDO U. MANESE AND/OR PRINCESS CRUISE LINE, LTD., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Benedict N. Romana, a seafarer, claimed entitlement to disability benefits after being diagnosed with a brain tumor. His initial theory before the Labor Arbiter was that the illness was caused by an accident on board when a piece of metal ceiling fell and hit his head. On appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), he modified his claim, arguing instead that his brain tumor was probably aggravated by constant exposure to different chemicals and dust particles in his work as a mechanical fitter. However, Romana failed to supply any proof of the alleged accident or provide details regarding his exposure to specific carcinogens and harmful chemicals.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Romana is entitled to disability benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

RULING

No. Chief Justice Sereno, in a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurred with the majority’s denial of the petition but dissented from its doctrinal approach. She agreed that Romana failed to establish his claim. The legal burden was on the seafarer to prove entitlement by substantial evidence. Romana’s shifting theories and bare allegations, without corroborating proof, were insufficient to discharge this burden. Mere allegations do not constitute evidence.
Chief Justice Sereno clarified the proper legal framework under the 2000 POEA-SEC. For an illness to be compensable, two elements must concur: (1) the illness must be work-related, and (2) it must have existed during the contract term. While Section 20(B)(4) provides a disputable presumption that illnesses not listed in Section 32 are work-related, this does not equate to an automatic grant of benefits. The seafarer must still prove work-relatedness by substantial evidence. This presumption merely signifies that non-inclusion in the list is not an absolute bar to a claim. The parameters for proving this causal link are found in Section 32-A, which requires the claimant to establish four conditions: that the work involved the described risks, the disease was contracted as a result of exposure to those risks, it was contracted within a period of exposure, and there was no notorious negligence. Romana failed to satisfy these conditions. Therefore, the denial of his claim was proper, as he did not substantiate the reasonable linkage between his brain tumor and his working conditions.