Case Summary (G.R. No. 131856-57)
Facts
On February 11, 2014, Danille G. Ampo-on was employed by the respondents as an Able Seaman under an eight-month contract with a monthly salary of USD 671.00. After being declared fit for sea duty through a pre-employment medical examination (PEME), Ampo-on reported for duty. On October 18, 2014, while performing sanding work, he experienced a severe back injury, confirmed by diagnoses of L3-L4 Spondylolisthesis and L3 Pars Fracture. Following repatriation on October 23, 2014, and evaluations by the company-designated physician, he was advised to consider surgery, which he later declined. On March 25, 2015, an independent physician assessed him as permanently disabled, leading him to file a complaint with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) for total and permanent disability benefits amounting to USD 120,000.00, alongside other claims.
NCMB's Ruling
In its October 1, 2015 Decision, the NCMB ruled in favor of Ampo-on, stating his injury was work-related and thus entitled him to maximum disability compensation as per the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The NCMB found that the injury occurred during the course of his employment, and no adequate evidence from the respondents negated the work-related nature of his condition. The respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied on January 7, 2016.
CA's Ruling
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NCMB's ruling on March 28, 2018, asserting that apparent injury assessment by the company-designated physician warranted only Grade 8 disability benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). The CA favored the findings of the company-designated physician, noting that the independent physician's assessments lacked substantive medical proof.
Issue
The central issue is whether the CA erred in limiting Ampo-on's disability benefits to Grade 8 under the POEA-SEC instead of recognizing him as totally and permanently disabled based on his medical condition and the nature of his injury.
Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious, determining that Ampo-on’s back injury was work-related, thus affirming his entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits pursuant to the CBA. The Court emphasized that the determination of disability must be reflective of the actual capacity to work following any condition sustained. Notably, the assessment made by the company-designated physician was deemed provisional, as phrases such as "prognosis is guarded" and suggestions for surgery indicated that a definitive assessment had not been made. Consequently, the failure to provide a final assessment validating Ampo-on's fitness to work led to a legal presumption of tota
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 131856-57)
Case Background
- This case involves a petition for review on certiorari in relation to the decisions made by the Court of Appeals (CA) concerning the disability benefits claimed by the petitioner, Danille G. Ampo-on.
- The CA's decisions, dated March 28, 2018, and July 10, 2018, set aside previous rulings from the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) which had granted Ampo-on total and permanent disability benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) amounting to US$120,000.00 with attorney's fees of 10%.
Employment Facts
- Petitioner was employed as an Able Seaman by Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc. for the principal Neptune Shipmanagement Services Pte./NOL Liner under an eight-month contract with a basic monthly salary of US$671.00, excluding overtime and benefits.
- After passing a pre-employment medical examination (PEME), Ampo-on boarded the vessel M/V APL Barcelona.
Incident and Medical Condition
- On October 18, 2014, while performing sanding duties, Ampo-on experienced a significant back injury characterized by a snap and crunching sound, followed by severe pain.
- He was hospitalized in Taiwan on October 20, 2014, and diagnosed with L3-L4 Spondylolisthesis and L3 Pars Fracture before being repatriated on October 23, 2014.
- The company-designated physician recommended several treatments, including possible surgery, but noted that Ampo-on's fitness to work was unlikely within 120 days of treatment.
Claims and Initial Rulings
- Ampo-on consulted an independ