MANILA – The Court of Appeals (CA) has denied an appeal filed by a seafarer in seeking compensation for a mental disorder that he claims to have acquired while working for a shipping company.
In its resolution written by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz and dated February 21, the court upheld its Dec. 27, 2019 decision which in turn upheld the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruling dismissing the case filed by Jeffrey Diaz Valdez against Magsaysay Maritime Corp. and Princess Cruise Lines.
The CA said Valdez "failed to discharge his burden of presenting substantial evidence" and that such failure "meant that his claim for disability compensation was groundless".
Valdez was hired as a ship security guard for a contract for less than a year in 2017 and was assigned to the Grand Princess cruise ship.
In October 2017, he filed a complaint before the company's Human Resources Department about his fellow workers claiming he was being ill-treated.
By November 2017, he was disembarked in Hawaii and subsequently repatriated to the Philippines. Back in the country, he was diagnosed by a company physician with schizophreniform disorder.
In 2019, he was diagnosed at the National Center for Mental Health as having "bipolar affective disorder current episode depressed with psychosis".
Convinced that he acquired the condition while employed, he sued the company but the NLRC instead ruled to dismiss the suit.
In claiming for damages, Valdez said the company doctor’s explanation that the disability is not work-related is not sufficient and that schizophreniform disorder is not found in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration's (POEA) list of occupational diseases, it does not automatically preclude it from being compensable.
Ruling against him, the CA said "while it is true that there is a disputable presumption that his illness is work-related, Valdez cannot simply rely on such presumption."
"He should have adduced substantial evidence that his work conditions caused, or at the least increased the risk of contracting his illness. For example, he could have elaborated on the nature of his work and its connection to his illness. Simply stated, substantial evidence must be presented by the petitioner," the appellate court said. (PNA)
