Facts:

On February 11, 2014, Danille G. Ampo-on (petitioner) was employed as an Able Seaman by Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc. for its principal, Neptune Shipmanagement Services Pte./NOL Liner (Pte.), Ltd. The employment was under an eight-month contract with a basic monthly salary of US$671.00, excluding overtime and other benefits. After passing the pre-employment medical examination, Ampo-on boarded the vessel M/V APL Barcelona. On October 18, 2014, while performing sanding work, he experienced a sudden snap and crunching sound in his back, followed by severe pain. Upon reaching Taiwan on October 20, he was hospitalized and diagnosed with L3-L4 Spondylolisthesis and L3 Pars Fracture. He was repatriated on October 23, 2014, and referred to a company-designated physician who recommended physical therapy and suggested surgery. On February 6, 2015, the physician issued a report indicating that Ampo-on was unlikely to be fit for work within 120 days and suggested a Grade ...

Facts:

Employment and Contractual Background

• Petitioner Danille G. Ampo-on was employed on February 11, 2014, as an Able Seaman by respondent Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc. for the benefit of its principal, Neptune Shipmanagement Services Pte./NOL Liner (Pte.), Ltd.
• He was assigned to work aboard the vessel M/V APL Barcelona under an eight-month contract with a basic monthly salary of US$671.00, exclusive of overtime pay and other benefits.
• Prior to boarding, he underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) and was declared fit for sea duty.

The Incident and Medical Development

• On October 18, 2014, while performing sanding works, petitioner experienced an abrupt snap and crunching sound in his back followed immediately by severe pain.
• Upon arrival at the port in Taiwan on October 20, 2014, he was rushed to a hospital and diagnosed with L3-L4 Spondylolisthesis and L3 Pars Fracture.
• Subsequently, petitioner was repatriated on October 23, 2014 and referred to the company-designated physician.
• The company-designated physician conducted various tests, advised physical therapy, and even recommended surgery, eventually issuing a medical report on February 6, 2015 which stated:

- The petitioner was unlikely to be fit for work within 120 days of treatment. - If entitled to disability benefits, his disability grading was provisionally assessed as Grade 8 (loss of 2/3 lifting power of the trunk) with a guarded prognosis.

Filing of Claims and NCMB Proceedings

• Believing his condition rendered him incapacitated from work as a seafarer for more than 120 days, petitioner filed a complaint before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB).
• His claim was for total and permanent disability benefits amounting to US$120,000.00 in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), in addition to moral, exemplary, and compensatory damages, as well as attorney’s fees.
• Respondents contended that the injury was neither work-related nor accidental but was merely a manifestation of illness and further argued that petitioner’s refusal of the suggested surgery demonstrated notorious negligence.

NCMB and Court of Appeals (CA) Rulings

• The NCMB rendered a Decision on October 1, 2015, ruling in favor of petitioner by determining that:

- His back injury was sustained while performing his duties, thereby qualifying as work-related and accidental. - He was entitled to maximum disability compensation under the terms of the CBA, plus 10% attorney’s fees.

Final Procedural Posture

• Petitioner sought reconsideration from the CA in a Resolution dated July 10, 2018, which was also denied, leading him to file this petition for review before the Supreme Court.
• The core factual dispute centered on the finality and adequacy of the medical assessments provided, and whether these assessments fairly determined the nature and extent of his disability.

Issue:

• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in limiting petitioner’s award to only Grade 8 (partial) disability benefits under the POEA-SEC instead of recognizing his injury as total and permanent under the CBA.

• Whether the company-designated physician’s assessment, which was characterized as an interim evaluation with a guarded prognosis, constitutes a final and definite disability assessment within the established 120-day period.

• Whether petitioner’s refusal to undergo recommended surgery amounts to notorious negligence that would bar him from receiving full disability compensation.

• Whether the nature of the injury—as an unintended, unforeseen, and accidental occurrence during the performance of his duties—satisfies the criteria for work-related injury compensation under the applicable collective bargaining agreement.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)