GR 198388; (July, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 198388, July 28, 2014
JORAINA DRAGON TALOSIG, Petitioner, vs. UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC., FERNANDO LISING [President], HOLLAND AMERICAN LINE WASTOURS, INC., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Joraina Dragon Talosig is the widow of seafarer Vladimir Talosig, who was hired as an assistant butcher by respondents through a Contract of Employment incorporating the POEA Standard Employment Contract for a term of twelve months. He passed his Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) and was declared “fit to work.” He boarded the vessel MS Zuiderdam on August 26, 2005. In December 2005, after suffering rectal bleeding and abdominal pain, he was confined in a hospital abroad and diagnosed with a malignant neoplasm. He was medically repatriated on December 24, 2005, and subsequently diagnosed in the Philippines with Stage IV colon cancer. He died on June 29, 2006. Petitioner filed a complaint for death benefits. The Labor Arbiter granted the claim, but the NLRC reversed the decision, ruling that the death occurred after the contract’s termination and that the illness was not proven to be work-related. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC.
ISSUE
Whether the death of seafarer Vladimir Talosig is compensable under the POEA Standard Employment Contract.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the denial of death benefits. The ruling was based on two grounds. First, the seafarer’s death occurred after the termination of his employment contract. His contract was effectively terminated upon his medical repatriation on December 24, 2005, pursuant to the POEA contract, and he died more than six months later. Second, his illness, colon cancer, was not compensable. While Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA contract provides a disputable presumption that illnesses not listed are work-related, this must be read in conjunction with Section 32-A, which requires the claimant to prove that the illness is work-related. Colon cancer is not among the listed occupational diseases. The Court found that the petitioner failed to present substantial evidence to prove that the seafarer’s work conditions caused or increased the risk of him contracting colon cancer. The presumption was successfully rebutted by the respondents. The diet on board, alleged to be lacking in fiber, was not proven to be a direct cause, and the advanced stage of the cancer at diagnosis suggested a pre-existing condition not detected by the PEME.