De Leon v. Maunlad
De Leon v. Maunlad
Facts:
Petitioner Lamberto De Leon was hired by Respondents Maunlad Trans., Inc. as Team
Headwaiter for M/S Carnival Liberty, a vessel operated by Seacrest Associates through
a POEA-approved employment contract and assumed his duties for two years during
which he averaged ten to twelve hours of work daily. Petitioner, on certain occasions, was
also assigned as a "fire watch" while the vessel was repaired or dry-docked, exposing
himself to extreme heat from welding works and unusual amount of toxic fumes from
alcohol and thinner mixed with paint to be used after welding.
While on board the vessel, petitioner experienced uncontrollable blinking, shaking and
difficulty in speaking and breathing for three weeks. As such, he was referred to a
neurologist in Belize and underwent MRI and CT Scan. He was then diagnosed with
"cerebral atrophy" and was advised to seek a neurologist in Miami, Florida where the
vessel was headed. Upon reaching Florida, he was confined in South Miami Hospital but
due to the severity of his condition, he was advised to be repatriated.
When he arrived in the Philippines, he reported to his agency and was referred to the
Metropolitan Medical Services, Inc. for treatment from Dr. May Donato-Tan, who
diagnosed his illness as Parkinson's Disease and declared him unfit for duty.
Respondents acknowledged that petitioner was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease and
that he underwent several medical treatments. Petitioner received the medical opinion of
their company-designated physician stating that petitioner’s conditions were non-work
related. Thus, respondents refused to give petitioner full compensability.
LA ordered respondents to pay US$60,000.00 or its Philippine Peso equivalent and 10%
attorney's fees. According to the LA, those illness not listed under Section 32 of the
POEA-SEC are disputably presumed as work-related; thus, the burden is on the
respondents to present substantial evidence or such relevant evidence that there is no
1|Page
causal connection between the nature of the seafarer's work and his illness, or that the
risk of contracting the illness was not increased by his working condition. Further, in view
of the uncertainty of the diseases' development, the LA held that petitioner's work as team
headwaiter cannot be discounted as contributory, even to a small degree, in the
development of his condition.
NLRC affirmed. It held that the nature of the petitioner's employment is presumed to be
the cause of the illness because it occurred during his stint with respondents and that his
employment need not be the sole factor in the growth, development or acceleration of his
illness as it is enough that it contributed to the development thereof.
Issue:
Ruling:
2|Page
For disability to be compensable under Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC, two elements
must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury
or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract.
Petitioner was able to meet the required degree of proof that his illness is compensable
as it is work-connected. It has to be noted that as Team Waiter and as a seaman,
petitioner was prone to smoking and to a bit of drinking to beat the cold weather they
encounter in the high seas. Further, by the very nature of his work, he cannot just leave
his post just to discharge his urine. Therefore, where there is incomplete bladder
emptying or inability to pass urine, it likewise contributed to petitioner’s present medical
ailment. Moreover, petitioner was likewise exposed to harsh weather condition, chemical
irritants as his job as a head waiter often led him to the kitchen where chemicals are found
to keep the odor from spreading; to keep the cockroaches and other insects from
spreading within the vessel, to make the mess hall a sanitary place for eating; and
exposure to dust and other toxic substances though invisible to the naked eye are all
contributory to the aggravation of his illness.
Anent to the CA’s position, working on any vessel, whether it be a cruise ship or not, can
still expose any employee to harsh conditions. In this case, aside from the usual
conditions experienced by seafarers, such as the harsh conditions of the sea, long hours
of work, stress brought about by being away from their families, petitioner, a team head
3|Page
waiter, also performed the duties of a "fire watch" and assigned to welding works, all of
which contributed to petitioner's stress, fatigue and extreme exhaustion. To presume,
therefore, that employees of a cruise ship do not experience the usual perils encountered
by those working on a different vessel is utterly wrong. Further, the CA's opinion that no
other guests or employees suffered any illness being exposed to the same conditions as
petitioner, and thus, his illness cannot be considered as work-related, such is completely
erroneous because not all persons have the same health condition, stamina and physical
capability to fight an illness.
As aptly observed by the LA, petitioner's work as Team Headwaiter cannot be discounted
as contributory factor, even to a small degree in the development of his illness. The
contributory factor of petitioner’s work was strengthened by the fact that he already
experienced in a milder state the symptoms of the disease during his employment
contract with respondents prior to his last employment contract with them.
4|Page