G.R. No. 210072 . August 4, 2021.
CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT INC., NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINES INC., AND JICKIE ILAGAN, PETITIONERS, VS. MANUEL M. CUNANAN, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Manuel M. Cunanan (respondent) was hired as an assistant carpenter by CF Sharp Crew Management Inc. for its principal, Norwegian Cruise Lines Inc., under a ten-month contract. He was deployed on November 20, 2009. On February 16, 2010, while on board, he consulted the ship physician and was found to have elevated blood sugar and hypertension. He was medically repatriated on February 23, 2010. The company-designated clinic, after treatment, issued a Final Medical Progress Report dated August 24, 2010, stating his hypertension and diabetes mellitus were controlled and that he was “fit to resume sea duties.” Respondent signed a Certificate of Fitness for Work on the same date. Petitioners paid all his medical expenses and sickness allowances.
While still under the company-designated physicians’ care, respondent consulted two other doctors: Dr. Donald S. Camero (July 27, 2010) and Dr. Eduardo Yu (November 4, 2010). They issued medical certificates declaring him “permanently unfit for sea duties” and entitled to disability benefits. On October 12, 2010, Norwegian Cruise informed respondent he could no longer be re-employed. Respondent filed a complaint for disability compensation, damages, and attorney’s fees before the NLRC, claiming his illnesses were work-related and aggravated by an accident and working conditions involving hazardous materials.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. The NLRC reversed, awarding respondent permanent total disability benefits of US$60,000.00 and attorney’s fees. Petitioners’ petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was dismissed for procedural infirmities (lack of proper verification/certification and failure to attach certified true copies of the NLRC Decision and Resolution). The CA denied their motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

1. Whether the NLRC Decision and Resolution bearing the stamp “CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPY” substantially complies with the requirement for certified true copies in a petition for certiorari.
2. Whether the disputable presumption of work-relatedness dispenses with the claimant’s duty to prove his claim by substantial evidence.
3. Whether total and permanent disability is determined by the mere lapse of 120 days.
4. Whether attorney’s fees are justified merely because the respondent was forced to litigate.

RULING

1. On procedural compliance: The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners failed to comply with the procedural requirements. The copies of the NLRC Decision and Resolution attached to the CA petition were mere photocopies stamped “CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPY” by petitioners’ counsel, not certified true copies issued by the NLRC. This does not constitute substantial compliance. The certification must come from the issuing agency (NLRC) or its authorized officer, not from the party’s counsel. The CA correctly dismissed the petition.
2. On work-relatedness and burden of proof: The Court held that while the POEA-SEC creates a disputable presumption that an illness is work-related, this presumption does not relieve the seafarer of the burden to prove his claim by substantial evidence. The claimant must still establish a reasonable connection between the work and the illness. Respondent failed to do so. Hypertension, to be compensable under the POEA-SEC, must be essential or primary and substantiated by specific documents (chest x-ray, ECG, etc.), which respondent did not present. Diabetes mellitus is not listed as an occupational disease and has been held non-work-related. Respondent’s claim that his illnesses were triggered by an accident and exposure to toxic materials was unsupported by evidence. The company-designated physicians’ finding that his illnesses were controlled and he was fit to work was more credible.
3. On determination of permanent total disability: The Court ruled that the mere lapse of 120 days does not automatically constitute permanent total disability. The company-designated physician issued a final assessment declaring respondent fit for work within the 120-day period (from repatriation on February 23, 2010, to the Final Medical Report on August 24, 2010, which was within the extended 240-day period for justified cases). Respondent’s refusal to be re-evaluated by the company-designated physician after consulting his own doctors and his failure to seek a third-doctor opinion, as required by the POEA-SEC, meant the company-designated physician’s assessment stands. His non-rehiring does not equate to permanent total disability, as seafarers are contractual employees.
4. On attorney’s fees: The Court ruled that attorney’s fees are not awarded merely because a party was forced to litigate. Since respondent’s claim for disability benefits was without merit, the award of attorney’s fees by the NLRC was unjustified.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated November 23, 2012, and November 18, 2013, were AFFIRMED. The NLRC’s Decision and Resolution awarding disability benefits and attorney’s fees were SET ASIDE. The Labor Arbiter’s Decision dismissing the complaint was REINSTATED.