Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

SPECIAL FIFTEENTH DIVISION

BW SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. SP No. 163888
INC., AND BW MARITIME PTE.
LTD., Members:
Petitioners,
CORALES, P. B.,
Chairperson
CALPATURA, C. B., and
- versus - * ONG, M. P., JJ.

ALBERT UY ALDAYA, Promulgated:

Respondent. April 17, 2023

DECISION
CALPATURA, J.:

Before Us is a Petition for Review (With Prayer for the Urgent

Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining
Order),1 filed under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision,2
dated October 30, 2019, and the Resolution,3 dated December 16, 2019, of
the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators of the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board (PVA-NCMB) in MVA-034-RCMB-NCR-186-30-06-
2019.

The Facts

The instant case finds its roots in a Notice to Arbitrate,4 seeking the
payment of total and permanent disability benefits and attorney's fees, filed

* Acting Third Member vice Associate Justice Wilhelmina B. Jorge-Wagan, per Office Order No. 185-23-
RSF, dated April 11, 2023.
1 Rollo, pp. 3-53.
2 Penned by Maritime Voluntary Arbitrator (MVA) Hector L. Hofileña (Chairperson), MVA Walfredo D.
Villazor, and MVA Mariano M. Umali; Id., pp. 60-69.
3 Id., pp. 71-72.
4 Rollo, p. 131; Rosalinda G. Cruz was also impleaded in her capacity as President of BW Shipping.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 163888 Page 2
DECISION

by the respondent, Albert Uy Aldaya, against the petitioners, BW Shipping

Philippines, Inc. (BW Shipping) and BW Maritime Pte. Ltd. (BW Maritime).
BW Maritime is the foreign principal of BW Shipping, a local manning
agency.5

As borne from the records, the following are the facts:

On August 09, 2017, the petitioners hired the respondent as a

Messman on board the vessel BW Amazon under a nine-month Contract of
Employment,6 covered by a Memorandum of the Collective Agreement7
between the BW Fleet Management Pte. Ltd. and the Singapore
Organization of Seamen.

The respondent passed the pre-employment medical examination

before the commencement of his duties and was declared “fit for duty” in a
Medical Certificate for Service at Sea,8 dated July 17, 2017, issued by the
Halcyon Marine Healthcare Systems, Inc.

The respondent eventually left the Philippines, and on September 07,

2017, he embarked on the BW Amazon at the port of Fujairah, United Arab
Emirates (UAE).9

On October 01, 2017, while on board the vessel, the respondent felt a
progressive pain radiating from the lower right backside of his head down to
the right leg and the right-hand side of his body, and difficulty in moving the
fingers of his right hand.10

When the vessel arrived at Mizushima, Japan, the respondent was

referred to Dr. Yasuhiro Oshimo (Dr. Oshimo) for examination. He was
diagnosed with neurological pain11 and was advised to get enough rest and
avoid meat, alcohol, and salts.12 He was also given medication and was
declared “fit for duty.”

On January 27, 2018, while lifting heavy provisions, the respondent

felt a sudden knock on the left side of his upper back. 13 He ignored the pain
and continued working. When the pain aggravated, he reported his condition
to the Second Mate, who told him that he would be sent for a checkup in
Korea. The respondent was, however, unable to disembark in Korea for lack

5 Id., p. 5.
6 Id., p. 130.
7 Id., pp. 134-165; Also referred to as the “Collective Bargaining Agreement.”
8 Id., p. 133.
9 Id., p. 166.
10 Id., p. 168.
11 Id., p. 169.
12 Id., p. 168.
13 Id., p. 173.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 163888 Page 3
DECISION

of visa.14

On February 12, 2018, the respondent again complained of pain in his

upper left back, shoulder, and back. He was given medication for the pain
through a telemedical consultation with the Medsea Advisory Service.15

It was only on March 23, 2018 that the respondent was physically
examined by Dr. Grace Zhu (Dr. Zhu) of the Qingdao Municipal Hospital in
China. He was diagnosed with cervical syndrome and periarthritis of the
shoulder. Dr Zhu recommended a cervical and shoulder Magnetic Resonance
Imaging (MRI), noted that the illness was not caused by accident, and
declared the respondent as “fit for sea duties.” 16 Thus, the respondent
continued his duties on board the BW Amazon.

On May 15, 2018, the respondent was repatriated after the completion
of his contract with the petitioners.17 He arrived back in the Philippines on
even date and reported to BW Shipping's office two days later, or on May
17, 2018, for a debriefing.18 He was also referred to the company-designated
physician from the NGC Medical Specialist Clinic, Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz
(Dr. Cruz), who examined him on the same day. 19 Dr. Cruz also referred the
respondent to an orthopedic surgeon.

Subsequently, the respondent consulted with Dr. Cruz in a series of

checkups wherein he consistently complained of severe pain in his neck that
affected his mobility.20 His MRI results revealed that he is suffering from
cervical spondylosis with multilevel disc disease – C4, C7 to T2; 21 while his
musculoskeletal ultrasound results showed that he has calcific tendinosis,
subscapularis and supraspinatus, left.22 During his treatment, he was given
medication, and he underwent physical therapy.

Eventually, on October 08, 2018, Dr. Cruz gave the respondent a

“final disability assessment [of] Grade 10 – moderate stiffness or [two-
thirds] (2/3) loss of [the] motion of the neck.” Dr. Cruz also declared that the
respondent's cervical spondylosis with multilevel disc disease is
degenerative and not work-related.23

Despite the final assessment, the respondent continued his physical

therapy. After reaching the maximum medical cure, his treatment was

14 Id., p. 217.
15 Id., pp. 102, 173.
16 Id., p. 175.
17 Id., p. 178.
18 Id., p. 103.
19 Id., p. 179.
20 Id., pp. 179-209; See 1st to 26th Medical Reports.
21 Id., p. 182.
22 Id., p. 188.
23 Id., p. 198.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 163888 Page 4
DECISION

terminated on November 28, 2018.24

In the 26th Medical Report,25 dated November 28, 2018, Dr. Cruz
reiterated the respondent's assessment of a Grade 10 disability.

Based on Dr. Cruz's disability assessment, the petitioners offered to

pay the respondent USD$10,075.00, corresponding to the Grade 10
disability. The respondent refused the offer.26

On January 14, 2019, the respondent consulted with an independent

physician, Dr. Misael Jonathan A. Ticman (Dr. Ticman), who issued a
Disability Report27 finding the respondent permanently disabled and unfit to
work as a seaman in any capacity.

Thus, on January 25, 2019, the respondent, through counsel, sent a

letter28
to BW Shipping informing it of Dr. Ticman's assessment. He also
expressed his willingness to refer his case to a third doctor.

On January 30, 2019, the respondent pursued a disability complaint

with the NCMB by filing a Notice to Arbitrate.29

As the parties failed to arrive at a compromise, on May 29, 2019, they

entered into a Submission Agreement30 to submit to voluntary arbitration the
issue of whether the respondent is “entitled to total and permanent disability
benefits and attorney's fees.”

Despite the conduct of several conferences, the parties still failed to

reach an amicable settlement. Hence, the PVA-NCMB directed them to
submit their respective position papers.31

The Ruling of the PVA-NCMB

On October 30, 2019 , the PVA-NCMB issued the assailed Decision32

in favor of the respondent.

The PVA-NCMB decreed that the respondent established a reasonable

connection between his employment and his disability. It gave credence to
the respondent's assertion that the petitioners repeatedly employed him for
twenty-one (21) years. It also held that the respondent's duties as a Messman

24 Id., p. 205.
25 Id.
26 Id., p. 108.
27 Id., p. 209.
28 Id., p. 208.
29 Supra, at note 4.
30 Rollo, p. 132.
31 Id., p. 110.
32 Supra, at note 2.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 163888 Page 5
DECISION

caused stress to his cervical spine, contributing to the development of his

medical condition.33

The PVA-NCMB also gave more weight to the assessment of Dr.

Ticman, considering that Dr. Cruz did not definitely state whether the
respondent was unfit to work as a seaman in any capacity.34

Finally, the PVA-NCMB ruled that the respondent is entitled to full

disability compensation equivalent to his position as Messman in the amount
of USD$105,888.00 under the CBA, as his condition resulted from an
accident that occurred during his employment. The respondent was also
awarded attorney's fees.35

The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, Complainant is

hereby declared to be totally and permanently disabled and
Respondents are hereby held solidarily liable to pay Complainant the
amount of USD$105,888.00 as full disability compensation and 10%
of the total judgment award by way of attorney's fees.

SO ORDERED.”36

Displeased, the petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,37

which was denied in the assailed Resolution,38 dated December 16, 2019.

The Issues

Aggrieved, the petitioners now come before Us, raising the following
issues for Our consideration, to wit:

“A. Whether the PVA committed serious and reversible error

of law and of fact in ruling that the Respondent is entitled
to permanent total disability compensation.

B. Whether the PVA committed serious and reversible error

of law and of fact in holding that the Respondent is
entitled to attorney's fees.”39

33 Id., p. 64.
34 Id., pp. 66-67.
35 Id., p. 67-69.
36 Id., p. 69.
37 Id., pp. 74-93.
38 Supra, at note 3.
39 Rollo, p. 18.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 163888 Page 6
DECISION

Our Ruling

The petition is partly meritorious.

The respondent's medical condition is

work-related; thus, compensable
under the POEA-SEC

For disability to be compensable under Section 20(A) 40 of the

Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas
Employment of Filipino Seafarers on-Board Ocean-Going Ships (POEA-
SEC),41 two elements must concur, namely: (1) the injury or illness must be
work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have existed
during the term of the seafarer's contract.42

Relevantly, the POEA-SEC defines work-related illness as any

sickness occurring as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section
32-A43 thereof with the conditions set therein satisfied; while work-related
injury is that arising out of and in the course of employment.44

In the instant case, Dr. Cruz diagnosed the respondent with “cervical
spondylosis with multilevel disc disease.”45 Dr. Ticman's assessement did
not differ in this aspect. He also found that the respondent has “Cervical
Spondylosis, Degenerative Disc Disease with Neuroforaminal Stenosis.”46

For the petitioners, the respondent's cervical spondylosis is not work-

related as it is degenerative, one that gets worse and results from the natural
process of aging.47

The petitioners are mistaken.

40 SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS

The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of
his contract are as follows: x x x
41 POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10, s. 2010, October 26, 2010.
42 Resurreccion v. Southfield Agencies, Inc, et al., G.R. No. 250085, June 14, 2021.
43 SECTION 32. SCHEDULE OF DISABILITY OR IMPEDIMENT FOR INJURIES SUFFERED AND
DISEASES INCLUDING OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES OR ILLNESS CONTRACTED. x x x
44 Definition of Terms:

For purposes of this contract, the following terms are defined as follows:

xxx

16. Work-Related Illness - any sickness as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section
32-A of this Contract with the conditions set therein satisfied
17. Work-Related Injury - injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
45 Rollo, p. 198.
46 Id., p. 209.
47 Id., pp. 24-25.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 163888 Page 7
DECISION

Spondylosis, a degenerative disease affecting the spine, is a

compensable disease under the POEA-SEC. In Caampued v. Next Wave
Maritime Management, Inc., et al.,48 the Supreme Court explained, viz.:

“Further, spinal disc degeneration/desiccation or

osteoarthritis is a compensable disease under the POEA-SEC.
The Court explained in Centennial Transmarine, Inc. v. Quiambao
that degenerative disc disease is a spinal condition caused by the
breakdown of the intervertebral discs which results in the loss of
flexibility and ability to cushion the spine. When discs degenerate,
the vertebral bodies become closer together and this increased bone
on bone friction causes the wearing a way of protective cartilage and
results in the condition known as osteoarthritis. The degenerating
discs place excessive stress on the joints of the spine and the
supporting ligaments, which, overtime, can lead to the formation of
osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis is a stage of degenerative disc
disease. Spondylosis, on the other hand, is a term used to
describe osteoarthritis of the spine.” (Original citation and
emphasis omitted, emphases supplied)

Hence, the fact that the respondent's medical condition is degenerative

does not exclude it from the ambit of the POEC-SEC.

It is also important to note that under Section 32-A (21), osteoarthritis

is expressly considered as an occupational disease when contracted in any
occupation involving joint strain from carrying heavy loads, or unduly heavy
physical labor, as among laborers and mechanics.49

In the instant case, the respondent explained that he performed the

following duties as a Messman:

“As a MESSMAN, his job includes [c]leaning all alleyways,

Mess and Receiving Room, Senior Officers['] Cabin, Kitchen
implements and Utensils; Assists the Chief Cook in his cooking
duties; Serves food on [sic] all personnel and guests as well;
Observes proper cleanliness either personnel or in the over-all
upkeep of the Galley and Mess Room, carrying of supplies or
provisions to and from the kitchen to the refrigeration area and
performs such function as may be assigned to him by the Chief
Cook.” (Original underscoring omitted, emphasis supplied)50

Verily, the respondent performed a variety of tasks that involved

strenuous activities and physical labor. Specifically, his work required him to
lift heavy loads on board the BW Amazon;51 the petitioners have not shown

48 G.R. No. 253756, May 12, 2021.

49 Id.
50 Rollo, pp. 216-217.
51 Id., p. 217.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 163888 Page 8
DECISION

a contrary evidence to refute such fact. Hence, the PVA-NCMB correctly

held that the nature of the respondent's functions caused or, at the very least,
aggravated his medical condition.52

Case law teaches that for an illness to be compensable, it is not

necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and only reason for
the illness suffered by the seafarer. It is sufficient that there is a reasonable
linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his or her work to
lead a rational mind to conclude that his or her work may have contributed
to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing
condition he or she might have had.53

Nevertheless, We agree with the petitioners' contention that the

respondent presented no evidence to substantiate his claim of twenty-one
(21) years of service with them. 54 Indeed, the respondent failed to prove that
the petitioners hired him in 1996 and have been renewing his employment
contracts from since then.

Be that as it may, the respondent's cervical spondylosis is still

compensable because it has a causal connection with his work and he
suffered the same during his nine-month Contract of Employment55 with the
petitioners.

It must be noted that the respondent was deemed as “fit for sea duty”
after his pre-employment medical examination and was cleared to board the
BW Amazon.56 Although a pre-employment medical examination is not
expected to be an in-depth examination of a seafarer's health, still, it must
fulfill its purpose of ascertaining a prospective seafarer's capacity for safely
performing tasks at sea. Thus, if it concludes that a seafarer, even one with
an existing medical condition, is “fit for sea duty,” it must, on its face, be
taken to mean that the seafarer is well in a position to engage in employment
aboard a sea vessel without danger to his or her health.57

That being said, since the respondent passed the pre-employment

medical examination, it is highly probable that the strain of his work
aggravated his medical condition. To reiterate, only reasonable proof of
work-connection and not direct causal relation is required to establish
compensability.58

The respondent is entitled to total

and permanent disability benefits
52 Id., p. 64.
53 Virjen Shipping Corporation, et al. v. Noblefranca, G.R. No. 238358, May 12, 2021.
54 Rollo, p. 26.
55 Supra, at note 6.
56 Supra, at note 8.
57 Lemoncito v. BSM Crew Service Centre Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 247409, February 03, 2020.
58 See Caampued v. Next Wave Maritime Management, Inc., et al., supra, at note 48.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 163888 Page 9
DECISION

The petitioners argue that Dr. Ticman did not specifically refute Dr.
Cruz's assessment; thus, Dr. Cruz's assessment prevails and the respondent is
entitled to partial and permanent disability benefits only.59

We do not agree.

Permanent disability is defined as the inability of a worker to perform

his or her job for more than 120 days (or 240 days, as the case may be),
regardless of whether or not he or she loses the use of any part of his or her
body. Total disability, meanwhile, means the disablement of an employee to
earn wages in the same kind of work of similar nature that he or she was
trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any type of work which a person of
his or her mentality and attainments could do.60

In determining whether a disability is total or partial, what is crucial is

whether the employee who suffered from disability could still perform his or
her work notwithstanding the disability he or she met.61

In the instant case, while Dr. Cruz did not state whether the
respondent is fit to resume his duties, he issued a Grade 10 partial and
permanent disability to the latter. Following the legal precepts above, such
assessment presupposes that the respondent was not disabled as a seafarer to
earn wages in the same kind of work or similar nature for which he was
trained.62 In contrast, Dr. Ticman categorically declared the respondent to be
permanently disabled and unfit for sea duty in whatever capacity.

Hence, contrary to the petitioners' assertion, Dr. Cruz's and Dr.

Ticman's assessments, albeit similar with respect to the respondent's
diagnosis, differ as to whether the latter has a partial or total permanent
disability. Such conflicting findings should have triggered the referral of the
case to a third doctor jointly agreed upon by the parties and whose findings
shall be final and binding upon them.63

Here, the parties were unable to refer the case to a third doctor as the
respondent initiated the NCMB proceedings on January 30, 2019, 64 which
was two (2) days after BW Shipping received his letter-request on January
28, 2019.65 Thus, the PVA-NCMB did not err when it resolved the case
based on the merits of the medical findings of both sides.66

After a careful evaluation of the records, We agree with the PVA-

59 Rollo, pp. 40, 42.

60 Sunit v. OSM Maritime Services, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 223035, February 27, 2017.
61 United Philippine Lines, Inc. et al. v. Alkuino, Jr., G.R. No. 245960, July 14, 2021.
62 Id.
63 Reyes v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 230502, February 15, 2022.
64 Rollo, p. 131.
65 Id., p. 208.
66 Id., p. 66.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 163888 Page 10
DECISION

NCMB that greater weight and credence be accorded to the assessment of

Dr. Ticman, i.e., the respondent is permanently disabled and unfit for sea
duties in any capacity. The fact that Dr. Ticman’s assessment is a product of
a single consultation with the respondent does not diminish the credibility of
the said assessment. It must be noted that Dr. Ticman’s assessment is based
on the same results of the respondent’s MRI, ultrasound, and physical
therapy, which were relied upon by Dr. Cruz.67 The petitioners even
acknowledge such fact.68

In Reyes v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc., et al.,69 the assessments of the

seafarer’s chosen physicians were given more weight despite the conduct of
single consultations with them as they were based on the same results relied
upon by the company-designated physician. In ruling in the seafarer’s favor,
the Supreme Court ratiocinated thus:

“Although the CA observed that the diagnoses of Dr.

Magtira and Dr. Trinidad, the second physician seen by
petitioner, were made only after single consultations, We still
find them to be properly supported; as they were based on the
very same results of the extensive tests, procedures, and physical
therapy sessions of petitioner, which respondents' company-
designated physician relied upon. While the final diagnosis of the
company-designated physician deemed petitioner fit for work, it was
also noted therein that petitioner still reported episodes of numbness
in the affected area. Although these episodes were rare, tolerable,
and would be resolved at the end of the day, this observation is not
insignificant in determining petitioner's fitness for sea duty,
especially in view of the fact that petitioner sought a second medical
opinion less than two weeks after his last treatment with the
company-designated physician.

Additionally, the certification of the company-designated

physician would defeat petitioner's claim while the opinion of the
independent physicians would uphold such claim. The law looks
tenderly on the laborer. Thus, where the evidence may be
reasonably interpreted in two divergent ways, one prejudicial
and the other favorable to him, the balance must be tilted in his
favor consistent with the principle of social justice.” (Emphases
supplied)

Hence, the PVA-NCMB did not err when, in applying the principle of
social justice, it gave more weight to Dr. Ticman’s assessment.70

Moreover, Dr. Ticman’s finding that the respondent is permanently

67 Id., pp. 209, 211-212.

68 Id., p. 44.
69 Supra, at note 63.
70 Rollo, p. 66.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 163888 Page 11
DECISION

disabled and unfit to work as a seaman in any capacity is supported by Dr.

Cruz’s 26th Medical Report,71 which is the final medical report, stating that
the respondent still complained of “intermittent neck pain.” The respondent
also informed BW Shipping, in a letter dated January 28, 2019, that as of
date, he “remains incapacitated” to resume his duties as a seafarer. 72 In other
words, despite his extensive medical treatment, the respondent’s condition
did not improve.

It must be reiterated that in disability compensation cases, it is not the

injury which is compensated, but rather, the incapacity to work resulting in
the impairment of one's earning capacity.73 On this score, We quote, with
favor, the following findings of the PVA-NCMB:

“The permanent total disability of complainant is evident in

this case. From his repatriation and to date, complainant has not
been able to work as Messman and has in fact been declared of
Grade 10 disability impediment. x x x

xxx

The works and duties of a Messman involve strenuous

physical activities which require and demand of him his best
physical condition. Under the present circumstances, no ship owner
in his right mind would employ his services. Even presently,
complainant is not fully restored to his condition. Complainant's
condition[,] therefore[,] has permanently prevented him from
obtaining any gainful employment[,] particularly that of being a
seafarer.”74

Having settled that the respondent is entitled to total and permanent

disability benefits, We now discuss the CBA's inapplicability to his injury.

The respondent is not entitled to the

disability benefit under the CBA

The CBA, covering the respondent’s employment contract with the

petitioners, provides for a higher disability compensation of USD$105,888 75
when the injury or illness is caused by an accident, to wit:

“28. COMPENSATION FOR INJURY OR DEATH

(1) The Company shall pay compensation to a seaman for any
injury or death arising from an accident while in the
employment of the Company (as referred to in clause 11 of

71 Supra, at note 25.

72 Supra, at note 28.
73 Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc., et al. v. Bernarte, G.R. No. 239221, April 28, 2021.
74 Rollo, pp. 66-67.
75 Id., p. 163.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 163888 Page 12
DECISION

this Agreement) and for this purpose shall effect a 24-hour

insurance coverage in accordance with Appendix IV to this
Agreement.”76 (Original emphasis omitted, emphasis
supplied)

The foregoing provisions clearly show that the CBA does not cover all
injuries or disabilities arising or resulting from any cause. Rather, the CBA
covers only those disabilities that have resulted from an accident.

An “accident” has been defined in NFD International Manning

Agents, Inc. v. Illescas (NFD)77 as follows:

“‘Accident,’ in its commonly accepted meaning, or in its

ordinary sense, has been defined as:

[‘][A] fortuitous circumstance, event, or

happening, an event happening without any human
agency, or if happening wholly or partly through
human agency, an event which under the
circumstances is unusual and unexpected by the
person to whom it happens x x x.

The word may be employed as denoting a

calamity, casualty, catastrophe, disaster, an
undesirable or unfortunate happening; any
unexpected personal injury resulting from any
unlooked for mishap or occurrence; any unpleasant or
unfortunate occurrence, that causes injury, loss,
suffering or death; some untoward occurrence aside
from the usual course of events.’

The Court holds that the snap on the back of respondent

was not an accident, but an injury sustained by respondent from
carrying the heavy basketful of fire hydrant caps, which injury
resulted in his disability. The injury cannot be said to be the
result of an accident, that is, an unlooked for mishap,
occurrence, or fortuitous event, because the injury resulted from
the performance of a duty. Although respondent may not have
expected the injury, yet, it is common knowledge that carrying heavy
objects can cause back injury, as what happened in this case. Hence,
the injury cannot be viewed as unusual under the circumstances, and
is not synonymous with the term ‘accident’ as defined above.”
(Emphases supplied)

In the instant case, the respondent failed to show that his medical
condition was the result of an accident he met on board the BW Amazon.

76 Id., pp. 149.

77 G.R. No. 183054, September 29, 2010.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 163888 Page 13
DECISION

Moreover, following NFD, even the sudden knock he felt on the left
side of his upper back, while lifting heavy provisions on January 27, 2018,
cannot be considered as the result of an accident, because the injury resulted
from the normal performance of his duty – lifting heavy objects, without any
intervening event.78 Accordingly, he cannot claim disability benefits under
the CBA.

Nonetheless, the respondent is entitled to the disability benefits under

the POEA-SEC since his injury is work-related. Total and permanent
disability is equivalent to a Grade 1 disability under the POEA-SEC's
schedule of disability/impediment with a corresponding disability benefit of
USD$60,000.00.79

Incidentally, the petitioners alleged in their Memorandum,80 filed on

December 03, 2020, that they paid the judgment award pursuant to the PVA-
NCMB's Writ of Execution.81 If true, the respondent must return the excess
of what he received to the petitioners, because he is only entitled to the total
and permanent disability benefits under the POEA-SEC. This is in
accordance with Section 18, Rule XI of the 2011 National Labor Relations
Commission Rules of Procedure, as amended by En Banc Resolution Nos.
11-12, Series of 2012 and 05-14, Series of 2014.82

However, the petitioners have not submitted any proof to substantiate

the full payment of the judgment award. Hence, We have no basis to order
the respondent to return the excess of what he allegedly received from the
petitioners.83

The respondent is entitled to

attorney’s fees; legal interest is also
imposed on the total monetary award
due to him

With respect to the award of attorney's fees, Article 2208 of the New
Civil Code allows the recovery of the same in actions for recovery of wages
of laborers and actions for indemnity under the employer's liability laws.
Thus, We affirm the award of attorney's fees at ten percent (10%) of the total
monetary award as the respondent was indeed compelled to litigate due to
the petitioners’ failure to satisfy his valid claim for total and permanent
disability benefits.

78 See Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc., et al. v. Bernarte, supra, at note 73.
79 Id.
80 Rollo, pp. 403-465.
81 Id., p. 414.
82 Restitution. - Where the executed judgment is totally or partially reversed or annulled by the Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court with finality and restitution is so ordered, the Labor Arbiter shall, on
motion, issue such order of restitution of the executed award, except reinstatement wages paid pending
appeal; See also Oscares v. Magsaysay Maritime Corp., et al., G.R. No. 245858, December 02, 2020.
83 Oscares v. Magsaysay Maritime Corp., et al., id.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 163888 Page 14
DECISION

Anent the imposition of legal interest, in line with prevailing

jurisprudence, all monetary awards due to the respondent shall earn legal
interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this
Decision until fully paid.84 We emphasize that legal interest can be imposed
on the total judgment award even though the respondent did not pray for its
payment. To stress, the obligation to pay legal interest upon default is not
just an obligation arising from the law, but it is also founded on the general
principles of public policy.85

Finally, the petitioners pray for the issuance of a temporary restraining

order (TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction (WPI).

We stress that a TRO or WPI are ancillary remedies. Their success

would depend on the outcome of the main case. 86 Considering Our
disposition of the main case that the respondent is entitled to total and
permanent disability benefits under the POEA-SEC, the petitioners' prayer
for the issuance of a TRO or WPI must necessarily be denied.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is PARTLY

GRANTED.

The Decision, dated October 30, 2019, and the Resolution, dated
December 16, 2019, of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators of the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board in MVA-034-RCMB-NCR-186-30-06-
2019 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the total and
permanent disability benefits awarded to the respondent are REDUCED to
USD$60,000.00 or its equivalent amount in Philippine currency at the time
of payment.

Additionally, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is also
imposed on the total monetary award reckoned from the finality of this
Decision until full payment.

The prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of

preliminary injunction is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
CARLITO B. CALPATURA
Associate Justice

84 Benhur Shipping Corporation, et al. v. Riego, G.R. No. 229179, March 29, 2022; BSM Crew Service
Centre Philippines, Inc. v. Jones, G.R. No. 240518, December 09, 2020; Pelagio v. Philippine
Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 231773, March 11, 2019.
85 See Ventis Maritime Corporation, et al. v. Cayabyab, G.R. No. 239257, June 21, 2021.
86 Carpio Morales v. Court of Appeals and Binay, Jr., G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 163888 Page 15
DECISION

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
PEDRO B. CORALES
Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MICHAEL P. ONG
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 3 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
PEDRO B. CORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Special Fifteenth Division