TL;DR
The Supreme Court ruled that a seafarer’s Chronic Hepatitis C, contracted during employment, is a compensable work-related illness, even if not explicitly listed as an occupational disease in the POEA-SEC. This decision clarifies that illnesses contracted due to working conditions, even if modes of transmission are not definitively pinpointed, are presumed work-related. Seafarers diagnosed with such illnesses are entitled to full disability benefits if the company-designated physician fails to issue a final and definitive assessment within the extended 240-day period from repatriation.
When the Steward Became Ill: Proving Work-Relatedness of Hepatitis C at Sea
This case of Jorge P. Rosales v. Singa Ship Management Phils., Inc. revolves around a crucial question in Philippine maritime law: Is Chronic Hepatitis C, contracted by a seafarer during his employment, considered a work-related illness entitling him to disability compensation? Rosales, employed as a steward, developed Hepatitis C while working on a vessel. His claim for disability benefits was initially denied by the Labor Arbiter and later by the Court of Appeals, which deemed insufficient evidence linking his illness to his seafaring duties. The Supreme Court, however, took a different view, ultimately siding with Rosales and setting a significant precedent regarding the burden of proof and the interpretation of work-relatedness in seafarer illness cases.
Rosales’s job as a steward involved cleaning cabins and handling waste, including biomedical waste like syringes. Upon repatriation due to persistent abdominal pain, he was diagnosed with Chronic Hepatitis C. The company-designated physician initially downplayed the work connection, suggesting alternative non-work-related transmission routes. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that while Hepatitis C transmission is commonly through blood exposure, the listed modes are not exhaustive. The Court highlighted Rosales’s work duties, which inherently involved potential exposure to infected materials, and considered the timeline of his diagnosis, which fell within the incubation period of Hepatitis C after he began his employment.
The Court referenced the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), which lists “Viral Hepatitis” as an occupational disease, particularly in occupations involving exposure to infection sources through contaminated food or water. While Rosales’s case didn’t fit this specific category, the Court invoked Section 20(A)(4) of the POEA-SEC, establishing a disputable presumption of work-relatedness for illnesses not explicitly listed. This presumption shifts the burden to the employer to prove non-work-relatedness. The Court clarified that “work-relatedness” and “compensability” are distinct concepts. Work-relatedness is presumed for non-listed illnesses, but compensability requires proving a reasonable link between working conditions and the illness. In Rosales’s case, the Court found this link, considering the nature of his duties and the timeline of his illness.
Sec. 32-A. Occupational Diseases.
… 23. Viral Hepatitis.
In addition to working conditions already listed under Philippine Decree No. 626, as amended, any occupation involving exposure to a source of infection through ingestion of water, milk, or other foods contaminated with hepatitis virus; Provided that the physician determining the causal relationship between the employment and the illness should be able to indicate whether the disease of the afflicted worker manifested itself while he was so employed, knowing the incubation period thereof.
The Supreme Court underscored that the conditions for compensability of listed occupational diseases under Section 32-A should also guide the assessment of non-listed illnesses like Chronic Hepatitis C in this context. These conditions include: the seafarer’s work involving described risks, the disease being contracted due to exposure to those risks, contraction within a relevant exposure period, and absence of notorious negligence by the seafarer. Applying these, the Court determined that Rosales’s work as a steward exposed him to risks associated with Hepatitis C transmission, and the timing of his illness strongly suggested contraction during his employment.
Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of disability assessment and the 120/240-day rule. The company-designated physician issued a Grade 12 disability assessment 218 days post-repatriation, recommending further treatment. The Supreme Court deemed this assessment interim, not final, as it contemplated ongoing treatment and lacked a definitive conclusion on Rosales’s fitness to work. Because no final assessment was issued within the extended 240-day period, the Court ruled Rosales’s disability became permanent and total by operation of law. This triggered entitlement to maximum disability benefits under the POEA-SEC, negating the need for a third doctor referral, as there was no final company doctor assessment to contest.
The ruling reinforces the seafarer’s right to sickness allowance during treatment and upheld the principle of solidary liability of the recruitment agency’s corporate officers, including Ms. Norma L. David, the company president. The Court ultimately reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, granting Rosales permanent total disability benefits, sickness allowance, attorney’s fees, and sustaining the financial assistance previously awarded by the CA. This case serves as a significant reminder of the protective mantle Philippine law extends to seafarers, especially concerning illnesses contracted in the demanding and often hazardous environment of maritime work.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The central issue was whether Chronic Hepatitis C, contracted by a seafarer steward, is considered a work-related illness and therefore compensable under the POEA-SEC. |
| Did the Supreme Court consider Hepatitis C a work-related illness in this case? | Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that based on the nature of the seafarer’s work and the timeline of his illness, there was a reasonable connection to conclude that his Hepatitis C was work-related, even though it’s not explicitly listed as an occupational disease for seafarers in the POEA-SEC. |
| What is the significance of the 240-day rule in this case? | The company-designated physician failed to issue a final disability assessment within the extended 240-day period from repatriation. This failure, according to established jurisprudence, automatically rendered Rosales’s disability as permanent and total, regardless of the actual degree of impairment. |
| What benefits was Rosales entitled to? | Rosales was awarded permanent total disability benefits, sickness allowance for 120 days, attorney’s fees, and the financial assistance previously granted by the Court of Appeals. |
| What does ‘solidary liability’ mean in this context? | Solidary liability means that Singa Ship Management Phils., Inc., Singa Ship Mgt. Pte. Ltd., and Ms. Norma L. David (as corporate officer) are all individually and collectively responsible for the full amount of the awarded compensation. Rosales can demand the entire amount from any or all of them. |
| Does this ruling mean all illnesses contracted at sea are automatically compensable? | Not automatically. While illnesses not listed in the POEA-SEC are presumed work-related, seafarers still need to demonstrate a reasonable connection between their working conditions and the illness. The employer can then rebut this presumption. |
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Rosales v. Singa Ship Management, G.R. No. 234914, February 19, 2020
Leave a Reply