G.R. No. 200566 September 17, 2014
JEBSEN MARITIME INC., APEX MARITIME SHIP MANAGEMENT CO. LLC., AND/OR ESTANISLAO SANTIAGO, Petitioners, vs. WILFREDO E. RAVENA, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Wilfredo E. Ravena entered into a ten-month employment contract on September 6, 2006, with petitioners Jebsen Maritime Inc. and Apex Maritime Ship Management Co. LLC. as a 4th Engineer on board the vessel “M/V Tate J.” In May 2007, while on board, he suffered extreme abdominal pain, chills, diarrhea, weakness, and muscle spasms. He was repatriated on May 12, 2007. Upon arrival, he went to St. Paul’s Hospital in Iloilo City, where a mass was found in his ampullary area. He underwent Whipple surgery on May 21, 2007, and was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma (cancer of the ampullary area). The company-designated physician, Dr. Nicomedes Cruz, opined that the illness was not work-related. Ravena filed a complaint for disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter granted his claim, awarding US$125,000.00 in disability benefits. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, dismissing the complaint for lack of proof that the illness was work-related. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision but reduced the disability award to US$60,000.00, finding that Ravena’s working conditions, including dietary provisions on board, contributed to the aggravation of his illness.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Wilfredo E. Ravena is entitled to disability benefits for his adenocarcinoma (cancer of the ampullary area) under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that Ravena failed to substantiate his claim that his illness was work-related or work-aggravated. The Court held that while Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC provides a disputable presumption that illnesses not listed as occupational are work-related, this presumption was sufficiently rebutted by the company-designated physician’s opinion that the illness was not work-related. Ravena did not present any contrary medical opinion or substantial evidence to prove that his working conditions, such as exposure to chemicals or dietary provisions, caused or aggravated his ampullary cancer. The Court emphasized that mere allegations, without credible supporting evidence, are insufficient to establish compensability. Furthermore, the Court noted that ampullary cancer is not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, and Ravena did not demonstrate that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by his working conditions. Consequently, Ravena is not entitled to disability benefits.