Case Digest (G.R. No. 198640)
Facts:
This is Carlo F. Sunga v. Virjen Shipping Corporation, Nissho Odyssey Ship Management Pte. Ltd., and/or Capt. Angel Zambrano, G.R. No. 198640, April 23, 2014, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.Carlo F. Sunga (petitioner) was engaged on July 14, 2006 by Virjen Shipping Corporation, acting for its foreign principal Nissho Odyssey Ship Management Pte. Ltd., as a fitter aboard the MT Sunway for a nine‑month contract at US$566 monthly. His employment was covered by the IBF JUS/AMOSUP‑IMMAJ Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the employer and AMOSUP. Before deployment he passed a pre‑employment medical exam, but in 2007 he began suffering intermittent right‑flank and lower‑back pain that progressively worsened and prompted repatriation on April 25, 2007.
Upon repatriation Sunga was examined by the company physician, Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz, who ordered lumbosacral MRI and prescribed four months of physical therapy. Despite therapy, Sunga continued to experience severe back and right‑leg pain, limited trunk mobility and inability to lift. On September 7, 2007 Dr. Cruz issued two certificates: one grading a Grade 8 disability pursuant to the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers, and another grading disability at 25% under the parties’ CBA. Virjen offered US$16,795 under the POEA schedule, which Sunga rejected and instead demanded benefits under the CBA equivalent to US$110,000.
Sunga filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter on October 23, 2007 seeking the CBA benefits plus attorneys’ fees and moral/exemplary damages. He alleged that on January 5, 2007 while changing a 200‑kilogram globe valve with two other oilers one oiler lost his grip and the valve fell, causing his back to “snap” and thereafter crippling pain. Virjen countered that the disability resulted from an illness or anatomical defect and that the CBA only covers disability caused by an accident; it challenged proof that an accident occurred.
The Labor Arbiter ruled for Sunga on May 30, 2008, awarding US$110,000 and 10% attorneys’ fees. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter on December 21, 2009 but slightly reduced the awards to US$105,000 and US$10,500; its denial of reconsideration followed. Virjen brought a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The CA granted the petition and reversed the labor tribunals on February 25, 2011 (reso...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals act within its jurisdiction and proper scope of review in annulling the NLRC decision — i.e., did the CA properly find grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC?
- Was Sunga’s injury the result of an “accident” within the meaning of the parties’ CBA, thereby entitling him to the CBA...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)