G.R. No. 237130 , July 01, 2020
ADEX R. MACAHILAS, PETITIONER, VS. BSM CREW SERVICE CENTRE PHILS., INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Adex Macahilas was employed as a Third Engineer by respondent BSM Crew Service Centre Phils., Inc. under a Collective Bargaining Agreement. On December 29, 2013, while on board the vessel APL Canada, he experienced abdominal pain, vomiting, and chills and was diagnosed with Phase IV Appendicitis in Mexico, where he underwent an appendectomy. He was medically repatriated on January 17, 2014, for further treatment of a wound infection. The company-designated physician opined that his appendicitis was not work-related. His wound healed by April 2014, but a CT-scan revealed an incisional hernia, for which he underwent repair surgery in December 2014. On March 12, 2015, the company-designated physician declared him fit to work. Macahilas consulted a personal physician, who assessed him as unfit for sea duty and that his illness was work-aggravated/related. He filed a complaint for permanent and total disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, awarding benefits under the POEA-SEC, which the NLRC affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Macahilas failed to prove his appendicitis was work-related and that his hernia, while listed as an occupational disease, did not arise from his employment as it resulted from the appendectomy. The CA also deleted the award of attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether Macahilas is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits and attorney’s fees.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. For an illness to be compensable under Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC, it must be work-related and must have existed during the employment contract. Appendicitis is not a listed occupational disease but enjoys a disputable presumption of work-relatedness. However, Macahilas failed to substantiate the reasonable connection between his work and his appendicitis. His claims of strenuous work and unhealthy diet were not supported by credible medical evidence. The company-designated physician’s assessment that it was not work-related, issued promptly after repatriation, stands. Regarding the hernia, while listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, it must be immediately preceded by undue or severe strain arising from employment. The incisional hernia was a complication of the appendectomy surgery, not a result of his work duties. The fit-to-work assessment issued on March 12, 2015, was for the hernia, not the appendicitis, which had been assessed earlier. The Court also upheld the deletion of attorney’s fees, as Macahilas was not compelled to litigate under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, given that his claims lacked merit.