G.R. No. 247221 , June 15, 2020
Wilfredo Lim Salas, Petitioner, vs. Transmed Manila Corporation, Transmed Shipping Ltd., and Egbert M. Ellema, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Wilfredo Lim Salas was hired as Second Officer by respondent Transmed Manila Corporation for its principal, Transmed Shipping Ltd., on board the vessel M/V Coalmax. After a pre-employment medical examination where he was declared fit, he commenced duty on April 4, 2014. His contract was later extended. In February 2015, Salas reported generalized weakness, easy fatigability, loss of appetite, and difficulty sleeping. He was diagnosed in Brazil with diabetes mellitus and gouty arthritis, declared unfit for work, and repatriated on March 21, 2015. Upon arrival in Manila, a company-designated physician evaluated him. An orthopedic surgeon confirmed gouty arthritis and opined it was not work-related, attributing it to increased uric acid levels and high purine diet. The company-designated physician, in a Medical Report dated March 23, 2015, declared both illnesses as not work-related, stating diabetes is “usually familial/hereditary” and gouty arthritis is a metabolic disorder. After follow-ups, a Medical Report dated May 4, 2015, noted Salas’ range of motion on both knees was normal and he was “cleared orthopedic wise,” directing further tests. However, records do not show if these were conducted or if there was any further update. Salas claimed his medical treatment was discontinued despite ongoing pain and his request for continued assistance was denied without furnishing medical records or a definite assessment. He consulted an independent physician, Dr. Victor Gerardo E. Pundavela, who, in a Medical Certificate dated July 23, 2015, diagnosed him with “Degenerative Osteoarthritis with Gouty Arthritis, bilateral knee; NTDDM controlled.” Dr. Pundavela pointed out that aside from elevated uric acid, knee pain could be caused by repeated stresses and strains from his duties as Second Officer, such as prolonged standing and faulty posture, rendering him unfit to work as a seafarer. Salas filed a complaint for disability benefits before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, awarding total and permanent disability benefits. The NLRC reversed, dismissing the complaint, finding Salas failed to prove his illnesses were work-related. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in upholding the finding that Salas is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.

RULING

The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modification. The Court held that Salas’ illnesses, while not listed as occupational diseases under the POEA-SEC, are disputably presumed work-related. The burden to overcome this presumption shifted to the respondents. The company-designated physician failed to issue a final and definitive assessment on Salas’ fitness or disability within the 120/240-day periods. The May 4, 2015 report only cleared him “orthopedic wise” but did not declare him fit to resume work or assess a disability grade. This failure resulted in a permanent and total disability by operation of law. The independent physician’s assessment, finding Salas unfit, thus became credible. Consequently, Salas is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits of US$60,000.00. However, claims for moral and exemplary damages were denied for lack of bad faith. Attorney’s fees were awarded pursuant to the Labor Code. Legal interest at 6% per annum from the finality of the decision until full payment was imposed on the awards.