Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LEONIS NAVIGATION Vs Heirs of Villamater Colon Cancer Compesnable Due To Diet in Workplace
LEONIS NAVIGATION Vs Heirs of Villamater Colon Cancer Compesnable Due To Diet in Workplace
The antecedents of this case are as follows:
Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration of the February 4,
2004 resolution, but the NLRC denied the same in its resolution dated June
15, 2004.
Before delving into the merits of this petition, we deem it fit to discuss
the procedural issues raised by petitioners.
According to Sections 14 and 15, Rule VII of the 2005 Revised Rules
of Procedure of the NLRC—
Petitioners received the June 15, 2004 resolution of the NLRC,
denying their motion for reconsideration, on June 16, 2004. They filed their
petition for certiorari before the CA only on August 9, 2004, or 54 calendar
days from the date of notice of the June 15, 2004 resolution. Considering
that the above-mentioned 10-day period had lapsed without petitioners filing
the appropriate appeal, the NLRC issued an Entry of Judgment dated June
28, 2004.
Moreover, by reason of the finality of the June 15, 2004 NLRC
resolution, the Labor Arbiter issued on July 29, 2004 a Writ of Execution.
Consequently, Leonis voluntarily paid Villamater’s widow, Sonia M.
Villamater (Sonia), the amount of P3,649,800.00, with Rizal Commercial
and Banking Corporation (RCBC) Manager’s Check No. 0000008550 dated
August 12, 2004, as evidenced by the Acknowledgment Receipt dated
August 13, 2004, and the Cheque Voucher dated August 12, 2004.
Following the complete satisfaction of the judgment award, the Labor
Arbiter issued an Order dated September 8, 2004 that reads—
However, petitioners argued that the finality of the case did not render
the petition for certiorari before the CA moot and academic. On this point,
we agree with petitioners.
In the landmark case of St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, we ruled
that judicial review of decisions of the NLRC is sought via a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and the petition should be
filed before the CA, following the strict observance of the hierarchy of
courts. Under Rule 65, Section 4, petitioners are allowed sixty (60) days
from notice of the assailed order or resolution within which to file the
petition. Thus, although the petition was not filed within the 10-day period,
petitioners reasonably filed their petition for certiorari before the CA within
the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 65.
Further, a petition for certiorari does not normally include an inquiry
into the correctness of its evaluation of the evidence. Errors of judgment, as
distinguished from errors of jurisdiction, are not within the province of a
special civil action for certiorari, which is merely confined to issues of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. It is, thus, incumbent upon
petitioners to satisfactorily establish that the NLRC acted capriciously and
whimsically in order that the extraordinary writ of certiorari will lie. By
grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and it must be shown that
the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or despotically.
The CA, therefore, could grant the petition for certiorari if it finds that
the NLRC, in its assailed decision or resolution, committed grave abuse of
discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence
that is material to or decisive of the controversy; and it cannot make this
determination without looking into the evidence of the parties. Necessarily,
the appellate court can only evaluate the materiality or significance of the
evidence, which is alleged to have been capriciously, whimsically, or
arbitrarily disregarded by the NLRC, in relation to all other evidence on
record. Notably, if the CA grants the petition and nullifies the
Simply put, the execution of the final and executory decision or
resolution of the NLRC shall proceed despite the pendency of a petition for
certiorari, unless it is restrained by the proper court. In the present case,
petitioners already paid Villamater’s widow, Sonia, the amount of
P3,649,800.00, representing the total and permanent disability award plus
attorney’s fees, pursuant to the Writ of Execution issued by the Labor
Arbiter. Thereafter, an Order was issued declaring the case as “closed and
terminated.” However, although there was no motion for reconsideration of
this last Order, Sonia was, nonetheless, estopped from claiming that the
controversy had already reached its end with the issuance of the Order
closing and terminating the case. This is because the Acknowledgment
Receipt she signed when she received petitioners’ payment was without
prejudice to the final outcome of the petition for certiorari pending before
the CA.
Second. We also agree with petitioners in their position that the CA
erred in dismissing outright their petition for certiorari on the ground of
non-joinder of indispensable parties. It should be noted that petitioners
impleaded only the then deceased Villamater as respondent to the petition,
excluding his heirs.
Rule 3, Section 7 of the Rules of Court defines indispensable parties
as those who are parties in interest without whom there can be no final
determination of an action. They are those parties who possess such an
interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their
rights, so that the courts cannot proceed without their presence. A party is
indispensable if his interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief
sought is inextricably intertwined with the other parties’ interest.
Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. Neither misjoinder
nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may
be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its
own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any
claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with
separately.
On the merits of this case, the questions to be answered are: (1) Is
Villamater entitled to total and permanent disability benefits by reason of his
colon cancer? (2) If yes, would he also be entitled to attorney’s fees?
We disagree.
It is true that under Section 32-A of the POEA Standard Contract, only
two types of cancers are listed as occupational diseases – (1) Cancer of the
epithelial lining of the bladder (papilloma of the bladder); and (2) cancer,
epithellematous or ulceration of the skin or of the corneal surface of the eye
due to tar, pitch, bitumen, mineral oil or paraffin, or compound products or
residues of these substances. Section 20 of the same Contract also states that
those illnesses not listed under Section 32 are disputably presumed as work-
related. Section 20 should, however, be read together with Section 32-A on
the conditions to be satisfied for an illness to be compensable, to wit:
For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to
be compensable, all the following conditions must be established:
1. The seafarer’s work must involve the risk described herein;
2. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer’s exposure to the
described risks;
3. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under
such other factors necessary to contract it;
Colon cancer, also known as colorectal cancer or large bowel cancer,
includes cancerous growths in the colon, rectum and appendix. With
655,000 deaths worldwide per year, it is the fifth most common form of
cancer in the United States of America and the third leading cause of cancer-
related deaths in the Western World. Colorectal cancers arise from
adenomatous polyps in the colon. These mushroom-shaped growths are
usually benign, but some develop into cancer over time. Localized colon
cancer is usually diagnosed through colonoscopy.
Tumors of the colon and rectum are growths arising from the inner
wall of the large intestine. Benign tumors of the large intestine are called
polyps. Malignant tumors of the large intestine are called cancers. Benign
polyps can be easily removed during colonoscopy and are not life-
threatening. If benign polyps are not removed from the large intestine, they
can become malignant (cancerous) over time. Most of the cancers of the
large intestine are believed to have developed as polyps. Colorectal cancer
can invade and damage adjacent tissues and organs. Cancer cells can also
break away and spread to other parts of the body (such as liver and lung)
where new tumors form. The spread of colon cancer to distant organs is
called metastasis of the colon cancer. Once metastasis has occurred in
colorectal cancer, a complete cure of the cancer is unlikely.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
Id.
G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494.
SEC. 4. When and where position filed. – The petition shall be filed not later than
sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for
reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the
sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.
Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Esteva, G.R. No. 161115, November 30, 2006, 509
SCRA 332, 363.
Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152568,
February 16, 2004, 423 SCRA 122, 130.
This rule has been substantially incorporated in the NLRC 2005 Revised Rules of
Procedure, which became effective on January 6, 2006, thus:
RULE XI
x x x x
Section 10. Effect of Petition for Certiorari on Execution.—A petition for
certiorari with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court shall not stay the execution of
the assailed decision unless a restraining order is issued by said courts.
Uy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157065, July 11, 2006, 494 SCRA 535.
Seno v. Mangubat, G.R. No. L-44339, December 2, 1987, 156 SCRA 113.
Uy v. Court of Appeals, supra note 27.
Nieves Plasabas and Marcos Malazarte v. Court of Appeals (Special Former
Ninth Division), Dominador Lumen and Aurora Aunzo, G.R. No. 166519, March 31,
2009; PepsiCo, Inc. v. Emerald Pizza, Inc., G.R. No. 153059, August 14, 2007, 530
SCRA 58, 67.
Estate of Posedio Ortega v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 175005, April 30, 2008,
553 SCRA 649.
Id.
Colon Cancer (cont.), What are the causes of colon cancer?
<http://www.medicinenet.com/colon_cancer/page2.htm (visited February 15, 2010).
Id.
Id.
Cadornigara v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 158073, November 23, 2007, 538
SCRA 363.
Masangcay v. Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 172800, October
17, 2008, 569 SCRA 592.
Debaudin v. Social Security System, G.R. No. 148308, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 601.