This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-11-25 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It must be borne in mind, however, that the list of illness/diseases in Section 32-A does not exclude other illnesses/diseases not so listed from being compensable. The POEA-SEC cannot be presumed to contain all the possible injuries that render a seafarer unfit for further sea duties."[17] So much so that Section 20 (B) (4) of the same explicitly provides that "[t]he liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows: (t)hose illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work related." In other words, a disputable presumption is created in favor of compensability. Illnesses not listed in Section 32 are disputably presumed as work-related. This means that even if the illness is not listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC as an occupational disease or illness, it will still be presumed as work-related, and it becomes incumbent on the employer to overcome the presumption.[18] | |||||
|
2015-06-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In Racelis v. United Philippine Lines, Inc.,[46] the medical opinion presented by the employer stating that the seafarer’s ailment is congenital in origin was discarded by the Court because the opinion came from a physician who did not personally attend to the seafarer in the course of the latter’s medical treatment and for being unsubstantiated by any medical findings. The ailment which caused the seafarer’s death was held by the Court to be work-related for failure of the employer to overcome the statutory presumption of work-relatedness. Similarly, in Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Babol,[47] the Court did not give probative weight on the company doctor’s opinion that the seafarer’s condition is not work-related as the wordings used in the doctor’s report did not make a categorical statement confirming the total absence of work relation but only a mere probability. Again, the Court upheld the presumption of work-relation. In Magsaysay Mitsui Osk Marine, Inc. v. Bengson,[48] the Court disregarded the company-designated physician’s categorical declaration that the seafarer’s illness is not work-related for being self-serving. As the facts of the case clearly showed the contributory factor of the seafarer’s daily working conditions to the illness suffered, even in the absence of a contrary opinion of other doctors, the Court sustained the illness’ work-connection. Also, in Teekay Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. Jarin,[49] the Court ruled that it was unnecessary for the seafarer therein to consult and provide a contrary opinion from his own doctors since the causal connection between the illness and the work for which he had been contracted was clearly detailed and convincingly established by him. | |||||