Case Digest: David v. OSG Shipmanagement Manila
G.R. No. 197205 : September 26, 2012
JESSIE V. DAVID, represented by his wife, MA. THERESA S. DAVID, and children, KATHERINE AND KRISTINA DAVID,Petitioners, v. OSG SHIPMANAGEMENT MANILA, INC. AND/OR MICHAELMAR SHIPPING SERVICES, Respondents.
VELASCO, JR., J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner Jessie David (David) entered into a six-month Contract of Employment with respondent OSG Shipmanagement Manila, Inc. (OSG Manila), for and in behalf of its principal Michaelmar Shipping Services, Inc., (Michaelmar) as a Third Officer of the crude tanker M/T Raphael. Part of his duties as a Third Officer of the crude tanker involved overseeing the loading, stowage, securing and unloading of cargoes. David was also frequently exposed to the crude oil that M/T Raphael was carrying.
Barely six months into his employment, David complained of an intolerable pain on his left foot. Thus, David was repatriated to the Philippines to undergo treatment.
Immediately after his return to the country, OSG Manila referred David to the company-designated physician, Dr. Robert Lim, who referred him to the Cardinal Santos Medical Center for a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The pathology report showed that David was suffering from malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) in his left thigh. Due to his condition, David underwent chemotherapy. However, despite several requests, OSG Manila and Michaelmar refused to shoulder Davids expenses and medication.
Hence, David filed a complaint to recover his disability benefits. The LA ruled in favor of David. The NLRC affirmed the Decision of the LA. However, the CA ruled against Davids entitlement to the benefits he claimed.
ISSUE: Whether or not Davids illness is compensable?
HELD: The petition has merit.
LABOR LAW: compensability of illness
In this case, David suffered from malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) in his left thigh. MFH is not one of the diseases enumerated under Sec. 32 of the POEA-SEC. However, Sec. 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC clearly established a disputable presumption in favor of the compensability of an illness suffered by a seafarer during the term of his contract. This disputable presumption works in favor of the employee pursuant to the mandate under Executive Order No. (EO) 247 dated July 21, 1987 under which the POEA-SEC was created: "to secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure compliance therewith" and "to promote and protect the well-being of Filipino workers overseas." Hence, unless contrary evidence is presented by the seafarers employer/s, this disputable presumption stands.
David showed that part of his duties as a Third Officer of the crude tanker M/T Raphael involved "overseeing the loading, stowage, securing and unloading of cargoes." As a necessary corollary, David was frequently exposed to the crude oil that M/T Raphael was carrying. The chemical components of crude oil include, among others, sulphur, vanadium and arsenic compounds. Hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide may also be encountered, while benzene is a naturally occurring chemical in crude oil. It has been regarded that these hazardous chemicals can possibly contribute to the formation of cancerous masses.
It is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and only reason for the illness suffered by the seafarer. It is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had.
Petition is GRANTED.
JESSIE V. DAVID, represented by his wife, MA. THERESA S. DAVID, and children, KATHERINE AND KRISTINA DAVID,Petitioners, v. OSG SHIPMANAGEMENT MANILA, INC. AND/OR MICHAELMAR SHIPPING SERVICES, Respondents.
VELASCO, JR., J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner Jessie David (David) entered into a six-month Contract of Employment with respondent OSG Shipmanagement Manila, Inc. (OSG Manila), for and in behalf of its principal Michaelmar Shipping Services, Inc., (Michaelmar) as a Third Officer of the crude tanker M/T Raphael. Part of his duties as a Third Officer of the crude tanker involved overseeing the loading, stowage, securing and unloading of cargoes. David was also frequently exposed to the crude oil that M/T Raphael was carrying.
Barely six months into his employment, David complained of an intolerable pain on his left foot. Thus, David was repatriated to the Philippines to undergo treatment.
Immediately after his return to the country, OSG Manila referred David to the company-designated physician, Dr. Robert Lim, who referred him to the Cardinal Santos Medical Center for a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The pathology report showed that David was suffering from malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) in his left thigh. Due to his condition, David underwent chemotherapy. However, despite several requests, OSG Manila and Michaelmar refused to shoulder Davids expenses and medication.
Hence, David filed a complaint to recover his disability benefits. The LA ruled in favor of David. The NLRC affirmed the Decision of the LA. However, the CA ruled against Davids entitlement to the benefits he claimed.
ISSUE: Whether or not Davids illness is compensable?
HELD: The petition has merit.
LABOR LAW: compensability of illness
In this case, David suffered from malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) in his left thigh. MFH is not one of the diseases enumerated under Sec. 32 of the POEA-SEC. However, Sec. 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC clearly established a disputable presumption in favor of the compensability of an illness suffered by a seafarer during the term of his contract. This disputable presumption works in favor of the employee pursuant to the mandate under Executive Order No. (EO) 247 dated July 21, 1987 under which the POEA-SEC was created: "to secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure compliance therewith" and "to promote and protect the well-being of Filipino workers overseas." Hence, unless contrary evidence is presented by the seafarers employer/s, this disputable presumption stands.
David showed that part of his duties as a Third Officer of the crude tanker M/T Raphael involved "overseeing the loading, stowage, securing and unloading of cargoes." As a necessary corollary, David was frequently exposed to the crude oil that M/T Raphael was carrying. The chemical components of crude oil include, among others, sulphur, vanadium and arsenic compounds. Hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide may also be encountered, while benzene is a naturally occurring chemical in crude oil. It has been regarded that these hazardous chemicals can possibly contribute to the formation of cancerous masses.
It is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and only reason for the illness suffered by the seafarer. It is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had.
Petition is GRANTED.
