“The State of Permanent Total Disability
Based on the foregoing, both parties failed to discharge their respective burdens to prove the non-work-relatedness of the disease for the petitioners (theory of work-relation) and the substantiation of claims for respondent (theory of work-aggravation). With this, the Court is confronted with the question as to whom it should rule in favor then.
In ECC v. Sanico, 36 GSIS v. CA. 37 and Bejerano v. ECC,38 the Court held that disability should be understood not more on its medical significance, but on the loss of earning capacity. Permanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work or work of similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness. Evidence of this condition can be found in a certification of fitness/unfitness to work issued by the company-designated physician.
In this case, records reveal that the medical report issued by the company-designated oncologist was bereft of any certification that respondent remained fit to work as a seafarer despite his cancer. This is important since the certification is the document that contains the assessment of his disability which can be questioned in case of disagreement as provided for under Section 20 (B) (3).of the POEA-SEC.39
In the absence of any certification, the law presumes that the employee remains in a state of temporary disability. Should no certification be issued within the 240 day maximum period,40 as in this case, the pertinent disability becomes permanent in nature.
Considering that respondent has suffered for more than the maximum period of 240 days in light of the uncompleted process of evaluation, and the fact that he has never been certified to work again or otherwise, the Court affirms his entitlement to the permanent total disability benefits awarded him by the CA, the NLRC and the LA.
In the same way that the seafarer has the duty to faithfully comply with and observe the terms and conditions of the PO EA-SEC, including the provisions governing the procedure for claiming disability benefit,41 the employer also has the duty to provide proof that the procedures were also complied with, including the issuance of the fit/unfit to work vertification.
Failure to do so will necessarily cast doubt on the true nature of the seafarer's condition.
When such doubts exist, the scales of justice must tilt in his favor.”
JEBSENS MARITIME, INC., ESTANISLAO SANTIAGO, and/or HAP AG-LLOYD AKTIENGESELL SCHAFT vs. ELENO A. BABOL, G.R. No. 204076, Dec. 4, 2013.