G.R. No. 240614 , June 10, 2019
DANILLE G. AMPO-ON, Petitioner, vs. REINIER PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING, INC. AND/OR NEPTUNE SHIPMANAGEMENT SERVICES PTE./NOL LINER (PTE.), LTD., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Danille G. Ampo-on was employed as an Able Seaman by respondent Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc. on board M/V APL Barcelona under an eight-month contract. On October 18, 2014, while performing sanding work, he heard a snap and crunching sound in his back, followed by tremendous pain. He was subsequently repatriated and diagnosed with L3-L4 Spondylolisthesis and L3 Pars Fracture. The company-designated physician treated him and, on February 6, 2015, issued a medical report stating that fitness to work was unlikely within 120 days of treatment and suggested a disability grading of “Grade 8 loss of 2/3 lifting power of the trunk” under the POEA-SEC, while also recommending surgery which petitioner refused. On March 25, 2015, petitioner consulted an independent physician, Dr. Manuel Fidel M. Magtira, who declared him permanently disabled and unfit to work.
Petitioner filed a complaint before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) claiming total and permanent disability benefits of US$120,000 under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The NCMB ruled in his favor, finding his injury work-related and accidental, thus entitling him to maximum CBA benefits. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the NCMB and held petitioner entitled only to Grade 8 disability benefits under the POEA-SEC, giving more credence to the company-designated physician’s assessment. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner is entitled only to Grade 8 disability benefits under the POEA-SEC, instead of total and permanent disability benefits under the CBA.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the NCMB decision, awarding petitioner total and permanent disability benefits under the CBA. The Court’s ratio decidendi is anchored on the following legal principles:
1. Determination of Total and Permanent Disability: The Court reiterated that total and permanent disability is defined not merely by a specific grading under the POEA-SEC but by the incapacity to perform seafaring work for more than 120 or 240 days. Citing Section 2(a), Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation, the Court emphasized that a seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total when he is unable to work for over 120 days, regardless of the company-designated physician’s failure to issue a final assessment within that period. Here, the company-designated physician’s February 6, 2015 report explicitly stated that fitness to work was “unlikely to be given within his 120 days of treatment,” which commenced from his repatriation on October 23, 2014. Since no fit-to-work certification was issued within 120 days (or up to 240 days), petitioner’s disability is deemed total and permanent.
2. Primacy of the CBA over the POEA-SEC: The Court held that when a CBA provides for higher benefits than the POEA-SEC, the CBA prevails as the contract between the parties. The applicable CBA clause provided for 100% of the capital sum insured (US$120,000) for “Total and Permanent Disablement” due to accident. The Court found petitioner’s injurysustained while performing strenuous sanding workto be an “accidental injury” under the CBA, defined as a “sudden, unforeseen and unexpected event causing damage to the body.” The NCMB correctly noted that a suppressed medical report from Taiwan indicated the illness was due to an accident. Thus, petitioner’s entitlement falls under the more favorable CBA provision, not the lower Grade 8 rating under the POEA-SEC.
3. Assessment of Disability by Company-Designated Physician: The Court clarified that while the company-designated physician’s assessment is generally given weight, it is not conclusive if it fails to comply with the 120/240-day rule. The physician’s suggestion of a Grade 8 rating was conditional (“If patient is entitled to disability”) and did not constitute a final assessment within the statutory period. Moreover, petitioner’s refusal to undergo surgery did not preclude total disability benefits, as the law does not require seafarers to undergo risky procedures to mitigate employer liability.
In conclusion, the Court ruled that petitioner’s disability, lasting beyond 120 days without a fit-to-work certification, is total and permanent. The CBA, offering higher benefits for accidental injuries, governs his claim. Thus, petitioner is entitled to US$120,000 as total and permanent disability benefits, plus attorney’s fees.