Nonay v.

Bahia Shipping Services

G.R. No. 206758; 17 Feb 2016

Doctrine:
 Payment of the judgment award in labor cases does not always render a petition for
certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals (CA), or a petition for review on certiorari filed
before this court, moot and academic.
 A petition for certiorari assailing a decision of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) is allowed even after the NLRC’s Decision has become final and executory,
provided that the petition is filed before the expiration of the sixty (60)-day reglementary
period under Rule 65.
 An illness may be disputably presumed to be work- related, the seafarer or the claimant
must still show a reasonable connection between the nature of work onboard the vessel
and the illness contracted or aggravated.
 Based on jurisprudence, the findings of the company-designated physician prevail in
cases where the seafarer did not observe the third-doctor referral provision in the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration- Standard Employment Contract (POEA-
SEC).

Facts:
Bahia Shipping Services hired Maricel Nonay in 2008, for an in behalf of Fred Olsen Cruise Lines.
She boarded the M/S/ Braemer as a Casino Attendant for a period of 9mos. She was later
assigned as an Assistant Auditor until Jan. 2010. Jan. 2010 onwards, she then worked as a Senior
Casino Attendant.

Around mid-February 2010, Nonay experienced profuse and consistent bleeding, coupled with
extreme dizziness and difficulty in breathing. The following day, she went to the ship’s clinic and
was prescribed medication. This medication was not effective, and she was given a different
medication- which only made her headaches worse, causing her to stop taking medicine
altogether. Her bleeding only worsened, prompting the ship’s physician to advise bed rest. But
this was to no avail, as her condition only worsened.

She went to a clinic in Barbados and a transvaginal ultrasound found 2 ovarian cysts, and
prompting an order that she be assigned to lighter duties. In 20 March 2010 she was medically
repatriated and the company-designated physician diagnosed her with “Abnormal Uterine
Bleeding Secondary to an Adenomyosis with Adenomyoma.”.

Nonay was not declared fit to work by the end of the 120-day period from March 20, 2010, the
date of her repatriation, but she was declared “fit to resume sea duties” within the 240-day
period. She also saw her own physician of choice, Dr. Manuel Jacinto, who was of the opinion
that continuously standing and walking as a Casino Attendant affected her

On September 8, 2010, she filed a Complaint “for payment of disability benefit, medical expenses,
moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.” She sought to claim permanent disability
benefits based on the collective bargaining agreement she signed.

LA: Ruled in favor of Nonay.

NLRC: Affirmed the decision in favor of Nonay.

CA: Bahia Shipping filed a Petition for Certiorari. In the meantime, it paid Nonay the amount of
3.78Mphp. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals imputed grave abuse of discretion on the NLRC,
finding that Nonay had failed to establish the work connection between her condition and her
work.

Nonay now comes to the SC raising that the Petition for Certiorari granted by the CA was already
rendered moot by the payment of the award by the NLRC. She also raises the POEA-SEC,
coupled with an existing CBA creating the presumption that illnesses not listed are disputably
presumed compensable.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the payment of the award rendered the petition for certiorari moot.
2. Whether or not the illness is automatically presumed compensable.
3. Whether or not Nonay may claim the awards.

Rulings:
1. NO. Payment of the judgment award in labor cases does not always render a petition for
certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals (CA), or a petition for review on certiorari filed before
this court, moot and academic. A petition for certiorari assailing a decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) is allowed even after the NLRC’s Decision has become final and
executory, provided that the petition is filed before the expiration of the sixty (60)-day
reglementary period under Rule 65.

2. NO. An illness may be disputably presumed to be work- related, the seafarer or the claimant
must still show a reasonable connection between the nature of work onboard the vessel and the
illness contracted or aggravated.

Even then, Nonay cannot rely on the supposed presumption arising out of their so called CBA, as
the presumption specifically refers to illnesses arising out of accidents.

3. NO. Based on jurisprudence, the findings of the company-designated physician prevail in cases
where the seafarer did not observe the third-doctor referral provision in the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration- Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

However, if the findings of the company-designated physician are clearly biased in favor of the
employer, then courts may give greater weight to the findings of the seafarer’s personal
physician. Clear bias on the part of the company-designated physician may be shown if there is
no scientific relation between the diagnosis and the symptoms felt by the seafarer, or if the final
assessment of the company-designated physician is not supported by the medical records of the
seafarer.

If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be
agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final
and binding on both parties.

Jurisprudence is clear on the matter that in order to properly question the decision of a
company-designated physician, the procedure for the same must be observe. Absent which, the
findings of the company-designated physician are entitled to be presumed correct.

Other Doctrines:
 A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of
facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of
the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the question must not involve an
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of
them.
 Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question
posed is one of fact.