G.R. No. 250203 - WARREN A. REUYAN, VS. INC NAVIGATION CO. PHILS., INC., INTERORIENT MARINE SERVICES LTD., AND REYNALDO L. RAMIREZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, respondents were ordered to solidarily pay petitioner permanent and total disability benefits in the Philippine currency equivalent of US$60,000.00, plus ten percent (10%) attorney's fees amounting to US$6,000.00. [14] The LA found that petitioner was able to establish that as Ordinary Seaman, he was exposed to and came in direct contact with various injurious and harmful chemicals on board the vessel, which contributed to his thyroid cancer. In this regard, the LA opined that the law does not require a causal relation but merely reasonable work connection for an illness to be compensable. Further, the LA found that petitioner could no longer perform the tasks and duties required by his position due to his illness and there being no proof that he was able to land any gainful employment during the 240-day period, petitioner is entitled to full disability compensation equivalent to Grade 1 impediment under the 2010 POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC). Finally, as regards the third doctor provision of the POEA-SEC, the LA pointed out that the records show that petitioner, through his counsel/representative, sent a copy of the medical report of his physician of choice on November 15, 2016 through electronic mail. Having been notified of the contrary medical assessment, it was incumbent upon respondents to initiate the process of appointing a third doctor. Thus, respondents' inaction should work against them and they could no longer invoke the provision of the POEA-SEC pertaining to non-referral to a third doctor. [15] However, anent the claim of sickness allowance, the same was denied as the records show that it had already been paid by respondents. In a similar vein, petitioner's prayer for moral and exemplary damages were likewise denied due to his failure to prove entitlement thereto. [16] Aggrieved, respondents appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC Ruling In a Decision [17] dated June 28, 2017, the NLRC reversed and set aside the LA ruling, and accordingly, ruled that petitioner is not entitled to permanent and disability benefits. [18] Contrary to the LA's findings, the NLRC ruled that petitioner failed to substantiate his claim and prove that his illness is work-related in order to be entitled to disability compensation. Petitioner's medical certificate issued by his physician of choice did not establish any causal connection between his work as Ordinary Seaman and his thyroid cancer. Relevantly, the NLRC found that the examination and treatment given by the company-designated physicians were more extensive than that of petitioner's physician of choice. The NLRC also held that petitioner's exposure to radiation from the communication facilities of the vessel, which emit electromagnetic radiation, as well as his exposure to various harmful substances or chemicals, still could not be deemed, for purposes of disability compensation, to have caused, aggravated or contributed to the development of his thyroid cancer. [19] Petitioner moved