“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.”
See –
JEBSENS MARITIME,
INC., ESTANISLAO SANTIAGO, and/or HAP
AG-LLOYD AKTIENGESELL SCHAFT vs. ELENO A. BABOL, G.R. No. 204076, Dec. 4, 2013.
