Disability due to accident

Is the injury suffered by the seafarer the result of an “accident” thereby entitling him to higher disability benefits under the collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)?

This is the question posed in the April 23, 2014 case of “Carlo F. Sunga v. Virjen Shipping Corporation, Nissho Odyssey Ship Management Pte. Ltd., and Capt. Angel Zambrano” which was decided by the Supreme Court under G.R. No. 198640.

The seafarer in this case, a member of the Associated Marine Officers’ and Seamen’s Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP), entered into a contract of employment as Fitter on board an ocean-going vessel for nine (9) months.  His employment was covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) executed between AMOSUP and his employers.

One time, while on board, the seafarer had to lift a 200-kilogram globe valve from the lower floor of the engine room to its installing position.  As it was being positioned, one of the oilers lost his grip of the valve, thus, causing its whole weight to crash on the seafarer.  At that point, he felt his back snap.  Since then, he started to experience pain which led him to request for repatriation which was accordingly granted.

Reporting to the company-designated doctor, the seafarer underwent medical examination and was issued medical certificates: the first, recommending a Grade 8 disability based on the POEA-Standard Employment Employment Contract (SEC), and the second, a disability grading of 25% in accordance with the CBA.  His employers offered the amount of US$16,795.00 as full settlement for his disability benefits based on the POEA-SEC but he rejected it and demanded that his benefits be based on the disability grading of 25% based on the CBA.  His employers claimed that he failed to present any proof that his disability was the result of an accident and it was simply an illness r an anatomical defect.

The arbiter and the NLRC ruled in favor of the seafarer, basing his disability benefits on the CBA.  The Court of Appeals ruled otherwise and applied only the POEA-SEC, noting that the back injury which the seafarer suffered was reasonably anticipated since carrying heavy objects can cause injury and that lifting and carrying heavy objects are part of his duties as Fitter.  There was no mishap, occurrence or fortuitous event when the injury was incurred.

The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the arbiter and the NLRC and found that the seafarer’s injury was the result of the accidental slippage in the handling of the 200-kilogram valve based on circumstantial evidence.  the High Court observed that the seafarer did not incur the injury while solely performing his regular duties but an “intervening event transpired,” i.e., when the oiler lost his grip of the valve, which brought upon the injury on the seafarer.  Such an incident cannot be considered foreseeable nor can it be reasonably anticipated.

The duty of the seafarer here was not to routinely carry a 200-kilogram valve singlehandedly, but only to change the valve.  An “accident” therefore, pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault of negligence attaches to the defendant.  As defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, “accident” is “an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence; something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated.”  As such, the seafarer’s disability benefits fall within the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) coverage, which provides that “A seafarer who suffers permanent disability as a result of an accident whilst in the employment of the Company shall be entitled to compensation according to the provisions of this Agreement.”   

#Article of Atty. Augusto R. Bundang of SVBB Law orignally published in the Tinig ng Marino July August 2014 issue.