MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court ordered a ship management company to pay "total and permanent disability benefits" totaling $90,000 (P5,032,215.00) with 6% annual interest to an employee who sustained an injury while playing basketball during his free time aboard a ship.
In a 21-page decision, the Supreme Court Third Division granted Rosell R. Arguilles' petition against his employer, Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning Inc. The decision overturned a ruling by the Court of Appeals (CA) regarding his disability benefits.
Anguilla suffered a “high-grade Achilles tendon tear” in his left ankle, leading him to undergo 49 physical therapy sessions at a clinic referred to him by Wilhelmsen Manning.
Wilhelmsen Manning ended his treatment, claiming that his work-related injury was too severe to be resolved within 120 days.
Arguilles sought the opinion of an independent physician, who then deemed him unfit for duty.
Arguilles did not receive his disability benefits from the company, prompting him to file a complaint with the arbitration branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
NLRC ruled in favor of Arguilles, directing the respondents (Wilhelmsen Manning) to pay him US$90,000 (P5,032,215.00) along with P450,000 for moral and exemplary damages.
Upon appeal, the NLRC initially upheld the disability finding but adjusted the awarded amount to a lower sum.
Following a motion for reconsideration by the respondents, the NLRC reversed its decision, dismissing Arguilles' claims which the CA also upheld.
Reversing the decision, the Supreme Court said that Arguilles was engaged in an activity endorsed by the employer on the vessel. The court emphasized that this action should not be considered reckless or intentional, as it was conducted with awareness of one's safety.
“In the case of Arguilles, he 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,” the court 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,” the court added.
However, the court also stated that not all injuries sustained by the seafarer are eligible for compensation because “employers were never intended to be insurers against all accidental injuries their employees might incur while in the course of employment.”
“But only for such injuries arising from or growing out of the risks peculiar to the nature of work in the scope of the workmen’s employment or incidental to such employment, and accidents in which it is possible to trace the injury to some risk or hazard to which the employee is exposed in a special degree by reason of such employment,” the court said.