GR 239299; (July, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 239299, July 08, 2020
Intercrew Shipping Agency, Inc., Star Emirates Marine Services and/or Gregorio Ortega, Petitioners, vs. Ofrecino B. Calantoc, Respondent.
FACTS
On March 14, 2008, Intercrew Shipping Agency, Inc., for its foreign principal Star Emirates Marine Services, hired Ofrecino B. Calantoc as a fourth engineer for 12 months. He was declared “fit for sea duty” despite having high blood pressure. On March 20, 2008, he was deployed. Four months into his contract, he experienced slurred speech, weakness on his right side, and was diagnosed with a mild stroke but continued working. He later requested repatriation due to worsening condition and arrived in the Philippines on July 14, 2008. He reported to the petitioners and requested medical assistance but was refused. He consulted a doctor at his own expense. An MRI on January 9, 2009, revealed a large convexity meningioma (a brain tumor). He was hospitalized and underwent surgery. He claimed inability to work for over 120 days and filed a complaint for disability compensation, medical expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees. Petitioners asserted no work-related incident occurred, that respondent requested sign-off due to pre-existing high blood pressure, refused post-employment medical examination, executed a release, and that his claim was stale, filed almost three years after repatriation.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly found that the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing respondent’s complaint for disability compensation, thereby entitling respondent to permanent total disability benefits and related claims.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The CA correctly found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The NLRC’s finding that there was insufficient evidence to conclude the illness was work-related was not in accord with the evidence and settled legal principles. Under the governing 2000 POEA-SEC, for an illness to be compensable, it must be work-related and must have existed during the term of the employment contract. The Court upheld the CA’s ruling that the respondent’s illness, which manifested during his employment and rendered him unable to work as a seafarer, is compensable. The CA’s reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter’s decision, with modification on attorney’s fees, was affirmed. The monetary award shall earn legal interest at 6% per annum from finality until full satisfaction.