G.R. No. 240614 - DANILLE G. AMPO-ON, VS. REINIER* PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING, INC. AND/OR NEPTUNE SHIPMANAGEMENT SERVICES PTE./NOL LINER (PTE.), LTD.,**.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, ordered respondents to jointly and severally pay him: (a) US$120,000.00, or its peso equivalent, as maximum disability compensation pursuant to the CBA; and (b) 10% attorney's fees. [21] It held that petitioner's back injury was sustained in the course of performing his duties as an Able Seaman while exerting force with his upper extremities and hence, work-related. Besides, the company-designated physician failed to issue a report or opinion to the effect that the medical condition was not work-related. [22] Moreover, the NCMB observed that the event so described, wherein petitioner suffered tremendous pain immediately when he heard a snap and crunching sound on his back during exertion, falls within the definition of accidental injury. [23] On this score, it further noted that page three (3) of the October 21, 2014 Medical Report Form - which appears to have been suppressed by respondents as the same was not included in its evidence - discloses that the certifying doctor encircled the text "Yes" [24] in response to the question "Is the illness due to an accident." [25] Hence, the NCMB concluded that petitioner is entitled to maximum disability compensation pursuant to the CBA. [26] Dissatisfied, respondents moved for reconsideration [27] but were denied in a Resolution [28] dated January 7, 2016; hence, the matter was elevated [29] to the CA. The CA's Ruling In a Decision [30] dated March 28, 2018, the CA set aside the NCMB's ruling and held that petitioner was only entitled to Grade 8 disability benefits under the POEA-SEC. [31] Essentially, the CA gave more credence to the findings of the company-designated physician that petitioners' disability was "Grade 8 - loss of 2/3 lifting power of the trunk" [32] considering that its assessment contained in the February 6, 2015 medical report was arrived at after examining petitioner thoroughly, and after requiring him to undergo a series of medical tests, physical therapy, and medication, as evidenced by six (6) medical reports. On the other hand, the conclusion of petitioner's independent physician, Dr. Magtira, that petitioner was unfit for sea duty, was made without proof of the medical procedures, examinations, or tests, which would form the basis thereof. [33] Undaunted, petitioner moved for reconsideration [34] but was denied in a Resolution [35] dated July 10, 2018; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in ruling that petitioner is entitled to only Grade 8 disability benefits under the POEA-SEC. The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. It is settled that the entitlement of a seafarer on overseas employment to disability benefits is governed by law, the parties' contracts, and the medical findings. The relevant statutory provisions are Articles 197 to 199 [36] (formerly Articles 191 to 193) of the Labor Code, in relation to Section 2 (a), [37] Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation