NILO M. ALNGOG, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIRST DIVISION), TORM SHIPPING PHILS., INC., TORM A/S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS A/S DAMPSEKIESSELSKABET TORM), AND …
GAERLAN, S.H., J.:
The facts, as culled from the records, may be summarized in this wise:
In a contract of employment[7] signed on 10 September 2008, petitioner Nilo M. Alngog (hereinafter called “Alngog”) was hired by private respondent A/S Dampskibsselskabet Torm (now Torm A/S) through its local manning agent private respondent Torm Shipping Phils., Inc. (hereinafter called “Torm Shipping”). Alngog was employed on board the vessel Torm Laura under the following terms and conditions:
1.1 Duration of Contract: 6 months
1.2. Position: GP1/AB Experience Allowance: $ 46.00
1.3. Basic Monthly Salary: $ 585.00 Education Allowance:$ 75.00
1.4. Hours of Work: 40 Hours
1.5. Overtime: $ 435/Month 103 Hours/mo. OT Rate: $ 4.23 /Hour
1.6. Vacation Leave with Pay: $176.00/Month
1.7. Point of Hire: Manila, Philippines
On 6 November 2008, Alngog boarded the vessel Torm Laura in Mexico. According to Alngog, he performed the duties of a GP1 (General Purpose 1) which includes giving assistance in mooring and in opening and closing the ship’s manifold as oiler and motorman, among others. He also worked as an AB or steering man. He alleged that most of the time, the crew of the ship are not equipped with protective clothing and equipment while they load and unload in ports and that they smell the bad fumes in the cargo.
While on board Torm Laura, Alngog averred that he suffered from uncontrollable coughing and excruciating pain in the stomach coupled with difficulty in breathing. As a consequence thereof, the master of the vessel referred Alngog to a medical facility in Houston, Texas on 20 February 2009. He was diagnosed to have Diabetes Mellitus[8] but he resumed his work on board although he remained to be in pain while working. Alngog was again referred to a company designated clinic in Corpus Christi, Texas on 19 March 2009 and was eventually ordered to be repatriated for medical treatment.[9] Consequently, Alngog was signed off on 28 March 2009 in the port of Cristobal, Panama on medical grounds.
Upon Alngog’s repatriation, he reported to Torm Shipping on 31 March 2009 and was referred to the company-designated physicians at the Manila Doctors Hospital, namely: Dr. Mary Anne Lim-Abraham and Dr. Nicomedes Cruz (hereinafter called “Dr. Cruz”). Alngog was diagnosed to be suffering from diabetes mellitus type 2 and mild left lower lobe pneumonia.
On 19 April 2009, Alngog was admitted at the St. Luke’s Medical Center for diabetes and pneumonia. The bills for said hospitalization was paid through Alngog’s personal medical insurance. Thereafter, on 18 May 2009, he was admitted at the Seamen’s Hospital being a member of the Associated Marine Officer’s and Seamen’s Union of the Philippines.
On 20 August 2009, Dr. Cruz declared Alngog to be fit to work.[10] As he allegedly continued to experience occasional weakness and dizziness, despite having been declared as already fit to work, he consulted Dr. Li-Ann Orencia (hereinafter called “Dr. Orencia”) for second opinion. Contrary to the previous declaration of Dr. Cruz, he was declared as totally and permanently disabled with a Grade 1 impediment for diabetes mellitus by Dr. Orencia whose medical certification[11] indicated that:
The patient is Mr. NILO M. ALNGOG, 51 years old, married, working as Able Seaman since 1990. Patient started employment on his last vessel on November 6, 2008. As Able Seaman, patient is exposed to extended working hours, extreme weather conditions, exposure to chemicals like Benzene and its derivatives working on a finished product tanker, and extreme stress as his work includes actual steering of the vessel through narrow passages and canals.
On February 20, 2009, patient had sudden unbearable abdominal pain. He was seen at a Houston clinic and was diagnozed to have Diabetes Mellitus. He was ordered with low carbohydrate diet and immediately sent home for treatment on March 20, 2009. Patient was confined at the Manila Doctors’ Hospital and the St. Luke’s Hospital where he was examined by an endocrinologist and the diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus was confirmed. On August 20, 2009, patient was pronounced fit to work with prescription of Metformin 850mg and Diamicron 80mg. Patient was futhermore advised continued consultation with physician of choice. At present, patient still has dizziness and occasional weakness. Recent FBS check up revealed 234 mg/dl (normal values 80-120 mg/dl) which was taken on Jan. 18, 2010. With this condition he cannot return to work as able seaman and may be considred totally and permanently disabled with a Grade 1 impediment according to Section 32-A of the Employment Contract.[12]
With the findings of Dr. Orencia, Alngog filed a complaint claiming for total disability benefits, sickness allowance, refund of travel expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees before the NLRC against herein private respondents.[13]
Finding merit in Alngog’s complaint, the Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor in its 10 August 2010 Decision,[14] the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding the respondents as jointly and severally liable to the complainant to pay the following:
US Dollar 60,000 as total and permanent disability benefit.
US Dollar 2,340 as sick pay for120 days.
P11,520.44 as medical reimbursement of air fare only.
Attorneys (sic) Fees equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the total awards.
All other calims are denied for lack of merit.
S O O R D E R E D.[15]
Aggrieved, the private respondents filed an appeal[16] from the Decision of the NLRC. In its 27 July 2011 Decision,[17] the NLRC granted the appeal and dismissed the complaint filed by Alngog against the private respondents for its lack of merit. Unsatisfied, Alngog moved for the reconsideration[18] of the Decision of the NLRC which was eventually denied in the 21 October 2011 Resolution[19] of the latter. Hence, Alngog is now raising the following issues for the determination of this Court:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT SERIOUSLY ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT THE PETITIONER’S DISEASE WAS NOT WORK-RELATED.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT MERE LENGTH OF TREATMENT CONFERS CREDIBILITY UPON THE COMPANY DOCTORS’ FIT-TO-WORK FINDINGS.[20]
The instant petition is devoid of any merit.
The terms and conditions of a seafarer’s employment, as with all other kinds of workers, are governed by the provisions of the contract he signs at the time he is hired.[21] However, unlike that of others, deemed written in the seafarer’s contract is a set of standard provisions set and implemented by the POEA called the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels, which is considered to be the minimum requirement acceptable to the government for the employment of Filipino seafarers on board foreign ocean-going vessels.[22]
Under Sec. 20 (B)(6), of the 2000 POEA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels:
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT
xxx
B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:
xxx
- In case of permanent total or partial disability of the seafarer caused by either injury or illness the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance with the schedule of benefits arising from an illness or disease shall be governed by the rates and the rules of compensation.
Clearly, to be entitled to compensation and benefits pursuant to the above quoted provision, it is not sufficient to establish that the seafarer’s illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled, it must also be equally shown that there is a causal connection between the seafarer’s illness or injury and the work for which he had been contracted for.[23]
In labor cases, the rule is that, substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion is required. Likewise, the oft-repeated rule is that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right thereto by substantial evidence.[24]
Diabetes mellitus is not an occupational disease under the POEA-SEC. Although Section 20 (B) (4) of the POEA-SEC provides that illnesses not listed in Section 32 thereof are disputably presumed as work related, it did not dispense with the required burden of proof imposed upon the seafarer as claimant. It remained incumbent upon the seafarer to discharge the required quantum of proof of compensability. Awards of compensation cannot rest entirely on bare assertions and presumptions. The claimant must present evidence to prove a positive proposition.[25]
As earlier narrated, Alngog has already been declared fit to work by Dr. Cruz, the company-designated physician, while he was considered to be totally and permanently disabled by his chosen physician, Dr. Orencia. This conflict should have already been resolved if the parties in this case stayed true to the provisions of the POEA-SEC.
Section 20 (B)(3) of the POEA-SEC specifically provides that:
The above cited procedure laid down in the POEA-SEC is intended to settle disability claims voluntarily at the parties’ level where the claims can be resolved more speedily than if they were brought to court.[26] Nonetheless, in the absence of the opinion of a third doctor, this Court is constrained to base its ruling on the evidences submitted by the parties and made part of the records of the instant case, which included the medical certifications of their respective physicians.[27]
Of vital importance to Alngog’s claim is the medical certification of his chosen physician. Of course, Alngog is allowed under the POEA-SEC to subject himself to the examination and assessment of a doctor of his choice. Notwithstanding, this Court cannot take his doctor’s conclusion at face value. It must be emphasized that Alngog was seen by Dr. Orencia only once. More so, Dr. Orencia’s certification merely narrated her patient’s medical history but failed to indicate the particular examination or procedure which she personally conducted on Alngog to substantiate her conclusion. The declarations that Dr. Orencia made were merely plain statements without any effort on her part to elaborate on how she arrived at such conclusions.[28] Further, the certification of Dr. Orencia came five months after Alngog was declared fit to work by Dr. Cruz. During the interim period, the health condition of Alngog could have changed due to different factors.[29]
On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that the doctor who have had a personal knowledge of the actual medical condition, having closely, meticulously and regularly monitored and actually treated the seafarer’s illness, is more qualified to assess the seafarer’s disability.[30] In the instant case, it was the company-designated physicians who were in a better position to give an accurate prognosis of Alngog’s condition due to the medical attention they gave him until five months after his repatriation as compared to Dr. Orencia who was not privy to his case from the beginning.[31]
It must also be noted that Alngog failed to present any evidence that he sought re-employment with Torm Shipping or that it was a matter of course for the manning agency to re-hire him after the expiration of his contract. Also, there is no evidence on record that he applied with other manning agencies but was turned down because of his illness.[32] Moreover, it is of no moment that he was previously cleared of any disease prior to boarding Torm Laura. A Pre-employment medical examination is usually not exploratory in nature and is not intended to be a totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant’s medical condition. Although it determines whether one is fit to work, it does not describe the real state of health of an applicant.[33]
On a final note, even if strict rules on evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation and disability benefits, it cannot be gainsaid that the award thereof cannot rest on speculations, presumptions or conjectures.[34] Still, the evidence must be real and substantial, and not merely apparent; for the duty to prove work-causation or work-aggravation imposed by law is real and not merely apparent.[35] As pointed out by the NLRC, apart from Alngog’s bare allegations, the records are barren of any evidence that would substantiate his claim that his disease is compensable.
WHEREFORE premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Salazar-Fernando (Chairperson) and Bruselas, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-25
[2] Rollo, pp. 26-35
[3] Rollo, p. 36
[4] Rollo, pp. 37-42
[5] Rollo, pp. 43-45
[6] Rollo, pp. 124-136
[7] Rollo, p. 100
[8] Rollo, p. 69
[9] Rollo, p. 70
[10] Rollo, p. 75
[11] Rollo, p. 76
[12] Supra, note no. 11
[13] Supra, note no. 5
[14] Supra, note no. 4
[15] Supra, note no. 4, p. 42
[16] Rollo, pp. 109-117
[17] Supra, note no. 2
[18] Supra, note no. 6
[19] Supra, note no. 3
[20] Supra, note no. 1, p. 7
[21] Alex C. Cootauco vs. MMS Phil. Maritime Services, Inc., Ms. Mary C. Maquilan and/or MMS Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 184722, March 15, 2010
[22] Ibid
[23] Marciano L. Masangcay vs. Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc. and Ventnor Navigation, Inc., G.R. No. 172800, October 17, 2008
[24] Crew and Ship Management International, Inc. and Salena, Inc. vs. Jina T. Soria, G.R. No. 175491, December 10, 2012
[25] Damaso R. Casomo vs. Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. and/or Columbia Shipmanagement Ltd., G.R. No. 191606, August 1, 2012
[26] Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. (now known as BSM Crew Service Centre Philippines, Inc.) and Dorchester Marine Ltd. vs. Eulogio V. Dumadag, G.R. No. 194362, June 26, 2013
[27] Supra, note no. 23
[28] Ruben D. Andrada vs. Agemar Manning Agency, Inc. and/or Sonnet Shipping Ltd./Malta, G.R. No. 194758, October 24, 2012
[29] Daniel M. Ison vs. Crewserve, Inc., Antonio Galvez, Jr. and Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd., G.R.No. 173951, April 16, 2012
[30] Philman Marine Agency, Inc. (now DOHLE-Philman Manning Agency, Inc.) and/or DOHLE (IOM) Limited vs. Armando S. Cabanban, G.R. No. 186509, July 29, 2013
[31] Supra, note no. 29
[32] Supra, note no. 26
[33] Carlos N. Nisda vs. Sea Serve Maritime Agency and Khalifa A. Algosaibi Diving and Marine Services, G.R. No. 179177, July 23, 2009
[34] Supra, note no. 28
[35] Supra, note no. 25