G.R. No. 240614 - Ampo-on vs. Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 240614)

Factual Background

Petitioner was employed on February 11, 2014 as an Able Seaman on board the M/V APL Barcelona under an eight-month contract with a basic monthly salary of US$671.00. After a pre-employment medical examination, petitioner boarded the vessel. On October 18, 2014, while performing sanding work, petitioner heard a snap and crunching sound in his back followed by severe pain. He was seen in Taiwan on October 20, 2014 and initially diagnosed with L3-L4 spondylolisthesis and L3 pars fracture, and was repatriated on October 23, 2014. The company-designated physician treated petitioner, recommended physical therapy and surgery, and on February 6, 2015 issued a medical report stating that fitness to work was unlikely within the 120-day treatment period and suggesting a disability grading of Grade 8 (loss of two-thirds lifting power of the trunk). Petitioner’s independent physician, Dr. Manuel Fidel M. Magtira, opined on March 25, 2015 that petitioner was permanently disabled and unfit for sea duty.

Claim and Relief Sought

Petitioner filed a complaint before the NCMB asserting that his condition rendered him incapacitated for more than 120 days and claiming entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$120,000.00 under the CBA, as well as moral, exemplary, and compensatory damages, and attorney’s fees.

Respondents’ Contentions

Respondents denied liability and contended that petitioner’s back condition was not work-related and did not arise from an accidental injury but was a manifestation of illness not compensable under the POEA-SEC or the CBA. Respondents further alleged notorious negligence on petitioner’s part for refusing the recommended surgery, despite respondents’ offer to shoulder the expenses, and thus sought to defeat or reduce any compensation.

NCMB Proceedings and Ruling

The NCMB, in a Decision dated October 1, 2015, ruled in favor of petitioner and ordered respondents jointly and severally to pay US$120,000.00 (or its peso equivalent) as maximum disability compensation pursuant to the CBA, plus ten percent attorney’s fees. The NCMB found that the injury occurred in the course of employment while petitioner exerted force with his upper extremities and that the incident fell within the definition of an accidental injury. The NCMB also noted that respondents failed to furnish page three of the medical report which indicated that the certifying doctor had marked that the illness was due to an accident.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated March 28, 2018, set aside the NCMB decision and held that petitioner was entitled only to Grade 8 disability benefits under the POEA-SEC. The CA accorded greater weight to the company-designated physician’s February 6, 2015 assessment, finding it based on thorough examination, multiple tests, physical therapy, and six medical reports; the CA found Dr. Magtira’s conclusion unsubstantiated because it lacked documentation of medical procedures or tests.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

The dispositive issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in limiting petitioner’s entitlement to Grade 8 disability benefits under the POEA-SEC rather than awarding total and permanent disability benefits under the CBA.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the NCMB Decision and Resolution. The Court held that petitioner was deemed permanently and totally disabled and entitled to the total and permanent disability compensation of US$120,000.00 under the CBA, together with attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent of the award. Claims for moral and exemplary damages were denied for lack of proof of malice or bad faith.

Legal Basis for Work-Relatedness and Accident Finding

The Court applied governing law that a seafarer’s entitlement to disability benefits depends upon statute, contract, and medical findings. It observed that under the 2010 POEA-SEC an employer is liable only for work-related injury or illness defined as arising out of and in the course of employment. The Court found that petitioner’s injury occurred while performing sanding work on board and that respondents did not proffer a categorical medical opinion that the injury was not work-related; respondents’ own physician suggested partial disability. The sudden snap and crunching sound during normal exertion qualified as an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence and thus could constitute an accident under the CBA and jurisprudence.

Legal Basis on Company-Designated Physician’s Assessment and the 120-Day Rule

The Court emphasized that the company-designated physician must arrive at a complete and definite assessment of fitness or degree of disability within one hundred twenty days, subject to an extension to two hundred forty days if further treatment is required, and that this assessment must be inscribed in a valid and timely medical report to be conclusive. The company-designated physician’s February 6, 2015 report, issued on the one hundred sixth day after repatriation, was not a final and definite assessment because it used interim language—“prognosis is guarded,” recommended surgery, and stated “if patient is entitled to disability, his suggested disability grading is Grade 8.” Because the report did not declare a final disability grade or indicate an estimate of further treatment to justify extending the one hundred twenty-day period, it could not prevail.

Operation of Law Deeming Total and Permanent Disability

Relying on Articles 197 to 199 of the Labor Code and Rule X, Section 2(a), and relevant precedent, the Court held that where a company-designated physician fails to render a final and definite assessment within the prescribed period and the seafarer’s condition remains unresolved, the law deems the seafarer’s disability to be total and permanent. The Court explained that total disability in this context concerns incapacity to work and loss of earning capacity rather than literal total paralysis, and that a permanent partial disability presupposes a capacity to resume sea duties within the treatment period, which was not the case here.

On Third-Doctor Referral and Notorious Negligence

The Court clarified that the third-doctor referral provision of the POEA-SEC becomes inapplicable where there is no final company-designated physician assessment to contest; absence of a final assessment allows the law to characterize the disability as total and permanent. The Court rejected respondents’ assertion of notorious negligence based on petitioner’s refusal to undergo surgery, noting that notorious negligence requires a deliberate disregard of personal safety and that there was no showing petitioner had been informed that surgery was the sole remedy or

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 240614)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Danille G. Ampo-on filed a complaint before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board seeking total and permanent disability benefits under the parties' collective bargaining agreement.
Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc. for and on behalf of Neptune Shipmanagement Services Pte./NOL Liner (Pte.), Ltd. opposed the claim and appealed the NCMB decision to the Court of Appeals.
The NCMB rendered a Decision awarding US$120,000.00 and ten percent attorney's fees to the petitioner, which the Court of Appeals set aside.
The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the NCMB decision.

Key Factual Allegations

The petitioner was employed as an Able Seaman on board M/V APL Barcelona under an eight-month contract with a basic monthly salary of US$671.00.
The petitioner underwent a pre-employment medical examination on February 3, 2014 and was declared fit for sea duty.
On October 18, 2014, while performing sanding work, the petitioner heard a snap and crunch in his back followed by acute pain, and he was later diagnosed with L3-L4 spondylolisthesis and L3 pars fracture.
The petitioner was repatriated on October 23, 2014 and was examined by the company-designated physician who recommended surgery and, on February 6, 2015, issued a report suggesting an interim Grade 8 disability.
The petitioner consulted an independent physician on March 25, 2015 who declared the petitioner permanently disabled and unfit for sea duty.

Claims and Defenses

The petitioner claimed entitlement to total and permanent disability compensation of US$120,000.00 under the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement and sought moral, exemplary, and compensatory damages plus attorney's fees.
The respondents contended that the injury was not work-related but was a manifestation of illness not compensable under the 2010 POEA-SEC or the CBA, and that the petitioner was notoriously negligent for refusing recommended surgery.
The respondents relied on the company-designated physician's assessment that suggested a Grade 8 partial disability rating.

Applicable Law

The entitlement of a seafarer to disability benefits was governed by Articles 197 to 199 of the Labor Code, Section 2(a), Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation, the 2010 POEA-SEC, and the parties' CBA.
The 2010 POEA-SEC defined work-related injury as one arising out of and in the course of employment and required referral to a company-designated physician for assessment within 120 days.
The company-designated physician's final and definite assessment within the prescribed period was necessary to determine the degree of disability and corresponding benefits.
If no final and definite assessment was made within the prescribed period and the seafarer's condition remained unresolved, the disability was deemed total and permanent by operation of law.

Lower Courts' Decisions

The NCMB, in its October 1, 2015 Decision, found the injury work-related and accidental and awarded US$120,000.00 plus ten percent attorney's fees, noting indications in the medical report that the certifying doctor answered "Yes" to "Is the illness due to an accident."
Th