A seaman who injured his ankle while playing basketball during his free time on the vessel is bound to be P5 million richer, courtesy of the Supreme Court (SC).
The Supreme Court has ordered Rosell Arguilles former employer, a ship management company, to pay him $90,000 (roughly P5 million), in disability benefits.
In a 21-page decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the high court’s Third Division granted Arguilles’ petition seeking to reverse the January 2020 decision and November 2020 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) that denied his labor case against his former employer Wilhelmsen-Smith Bell Manning Inc.
In its ruling, the SC invoked a provision in the Department of Labor and Employment Order No. 130, series of 2013, stating that the terms and conditions of seafarers’ employment shall be governed by the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration’s Standard Employment Contract (POEA SEC).
In that contract, a work-related injury is defined as an “injury arising out of and in the course of employment,” which does not require that seafarers suffer an injury during the actual performance of their duties.
The High Tribunal asserted that the same policy also provided that a seafarer’s contract of employment shall be effective until his or her date of arrival at the point of hire upon termination of his or her employment.
Arguilles sued Wilhelmsen Manning, its principal Wilhelmsen Ship Management Ltd. (WSML), and Fausto Preysler Jr., after the company terminated his treatment for a torn Achilles tendon for which he had undergone surgery and physical therapy sessions.
The petitioner, who had been employed as an ordinary seaman by Wilhelmsen Manning on behalf of WSML on board the vessel MV Toronto, incurred the injury while playing basketball with colleagues on Dec. 26, 2016.
Arguilles was medically repatriated to the Philippines and referred to Wilhelmsen Manning’s company-designated physicians for evaluation.
He underwent therapy from February to June 2017, but Wilhemsen Manning terminated his treatment allegedly because his work-related injury was too severe to be resolved within 120 days. Arguilles later consulted an independent physician who declared him unfit for duty.
When his request for disability benefits was denied, Arguilles filed a complaint in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration.
The labor arbiter initially decided in Arguilles’ favor and ordered the respondents to pay the latter the amount of $90,000 plus P450,000 in moral and exemplary damages.
On appeal, the NLRC maintained the finding of disability in Arguilles’ favour, but reduced the amount recommended by the labor arbiter.
However, Arguilles’ employer filed a motion for reconsideration, and the NLRC completely reversed its findings and ordered the dismissal of Arguilles’ claims.
The CA affirmed the NLRC’s final decision, prompting the petitioner to elevate his complaint to the Supreme Court.
In a comment submitted to the high tribunal, the respondents insisted that the appellate court had correctly ruled in their favor, stressing that Arguilles’ injury was not work-related and not subject to compensation.
They added that Arguilles, after undergoing treatment and rehabilitation, had been declared “fit to work” by the company-designated physician and that his monetary claims must be denied.
But the high court ruled that an employer was duty-bound to provide a seaworthy ship for the seafarer and take all reasonable precautions to prevent accident and injury to the crew.
“It is beyond cavil that petitioner’s injury was sustained while his employment contract was still in effect and while he was still on board MV Toronto,” it said.
“Accordingly, he suffered his injury in the course of his employment. This squarely falls within the POEA SEC’s definition of a work-related injury,” the court ruled.
But the Supreme Court clarified that not all injuries sustained by a seafarer on board a ship could be subject to compensation, as employers were never intended to be insurers against all accidental injuries their employees might incur during employment.
The SC said the burden was on the respondents to prove by substantial evidence that the injury incurred by Arguilles during his employment was directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act.
The court noted that the petitioner was “merely playing basketball, an employer-sanctioned activity onboard the vessel.”
“It cannot be considered as a reckless or deliberate activity that is unmindful of one’s safety,” it said.
“The records are bereft of any evidence, much less the slightest indication, that the injury suffered by [Arguilles] was intentionally or negligently incurred. Thus, his injury is worthy of compensation,” it ruled.
