Ampo-on v. Reinier Pacific International Shipping
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Danille G. Ampo-on, employed as an Able Seaman by respondent Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc. for Neptune Shipmanagement Services Pte./NOL Liner (Pte.), Ltd., sustained a back injury on October 18, 2014, while performing sanding works. He experienced a snap and crunching sound followed by severe pain. Upon reaching Taiwan, he was hospitalized and diagnosed with L3-L4 Spondylolisthesis and L3 Pars Fracture. He was repatriated and underwent treatment with the company-designated physician, who suggested surgery and issued a report on February 6, 2015, stating that fitness to work was unlikely within 120 days and suggesting a Grade 8 disability if entitled. Petitioner also consulted an independent physician who declared him permanently disabled. Procedural History: Claiming total and permanent disability benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), petitioner filed a complaint against respondents before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). The NCMB ruled in favor of the petitioner, awarding him US$120,000.00 in disability compensation and attorney's fees. Respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which set aside the NCMB's decision, ruling that petitioner was only entitled to Grade 8 disability benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration - Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the CA's decision was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. The core issue presented is whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioner is entitled to only Grade 8 disability benefits under the POEA-SEC, instead of total and permanent disability benefits as awarded by the NCMB. Petitioner argues that the company-designated physician's assessment was merely interim and not a final and definite assessment, thus, by operation of law, his disability should be considered total and permanent. He also contends that his injury was an accident and that his refusal to undergo surgery did not constitute notorious negligence.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner is entitled to only Grade 8 disability benefits under the POEA-SEC, and whether the petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. Whether petitioner's injury was work-related and accidental. Whether petitioner's refusal to undergo surgery constituted notorious negligence, barring him from claiming compensation.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the decision and resolution of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. Petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits under the CBA in the amount of US$120,000.00, plus ten percent (10%) attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to Grade 8 disability benefits vs. total and permanent disability: The Court reiterated that the entitlement to disability benefits is governed by law, contracts, and medical findings. For a company-designated physician's assessment to be conclusive, it must be complete and definite within the 120-day period. In this case, the company-designated physician's report stated that the prognosis was "guarded," that surgery was recommended but refused by the petitioner, and that "[i]f patient is entitled to disability, his suggested disability grading is Grade 8." This language indicates an interim assessment, not a final and definite one. The physician also noted that fitness to work was unlikely within the 120 days. Consequently, the assessment was disregarded, and by operation of law, the petitioner's disability was deemed total and permanent after the lapse of the 120-day period without a definitive assessment. The Court emphasized that total disability is not about the physical inability to move but the impairment of earning capacity. A permanent partial disability presupposes fitness to resume sea duties before the 120/240-day period, which was not established here. On whether the injury was work-related and accidental: The Court found that the petitioner sustained the injury while performing his duties as an Able Seaman, negating the respondents' claim that the injury was not work-related. The company-designated physician's report, although not fully definitive, suggested a partial disability grading, implying a work-related incident. Furthermore, the NCMB noted that a suppressed portion of a medical report indicated "Yes" to the question "Is the illness due to an accident." The Court also considered the sudden "snap and crunching sound" during exertion as an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence, qualifying as an accident under the CBA definition. On notorious negligence: The Court dismissed the respondents' claim of notorious negligence due to the petitioner's refusal to undergo surgery. It held that notorious negligence requires more than simple or contributory negligence, signifying a deliberate disregard for personal safety. There was no showing that the petitioner was informed that surgery was the sole remedy or warned of the consequences of his choice of physical therapy. Therefore, his refusal did not bar him from claiming compensation.
Main Doctrine
The company-designated physician's assessment of a seafarer's disability must be final and definite within the 120-day period. Failure to provide such an assessment, or if the assessment is merely interim or suggested, leads to the legal presumption that the seafarer's disability is total and permanent, entitling them to maximum disability benefits as stipulated in the CBA.