Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82973:56877&catid=1582&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:49:17+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 198640, April 23, 2014 - CARLO F. SUNGA, Petitioner, v. VIRJEN SHIPPING CORPORATION, NISSHO ODYSSEY SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD., AND/OR CAPT. ANGEL ZAMBRANO, Respondents.
CARLO F. SUNGA, Petitioner, v. VIRJEN SHIPPING CORPORATION, NISSHO ODYSSEY SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD., AND/OR CAPT. ANGEL ZAMBRANO, Respondents.
This is an appeal of the Decision1 dated February 25, 2011 and the Resolution dated September 14, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA–GR SP No. 113661. The appealed decision reversed and set aside the Decision dated December 21, 2009 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Second Division, finding Carlo F. Sunga (Sunga) not entitled to disability benefits.
2) To pay complainant an amount equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the total judgment award, as and for attorney’s fees.
Virjen filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, attributing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. On February 25, 2009, the CA granted the petition. The CA reasoned that accident is an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence, something that does not occur in the usual course of events or could not be reasonably anticipated. According to the appellate court, the injury was not accidental; it is common knowledge that carrying heavy objects can cause injury and that lifting and carrying heavy objects are part of his duties as fitter. Thus, a back injury is reasonably anticipated. It cannot serve as basis, therefore, for Sunga to be entitled to disability benefits. There was no mishap, occurrence, or fortuitous event when the injury was incurred. Hence, the CA reversed the findings of the labor tribunals and applied the POEA Standard Contract for Seafarers disability benefits (which only requires that the seafarer’s disability must be caused by an injury or illness that is work–related), instead of enforcing the parties’ CBA.
Sunga’s motion for reconsideration having been denied, it now come before us for a final review.
THE CA ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE PETITION DESPITE THE WELL–ESTABLISHED RULE THAT FACTUAL FINDINGS OF LABOR OFFICIALS ARE ACCORDED NOT ONLY RESPECT BUT EVEN FINALITY.
WHETHER OR NOT THE CA ERRED IN RULING THAT SUNGA’S INJURY WAS NOT A RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT.
Sunga primarily argues that factual findings of labor officials who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdiction are generally accorded not only respect but even finality and bind even the Supreme Court when supported by substantial evidence; that there was no reason for the CA to reverse the findings of the labor tribunals. More importantly, granting that the CA indeed has the power to annul judgments handed by the labor courts, the CA erred in finding that Sunga is not eligible for disability benefits under the parties’ CBA since he had incurred injury, by accident, in the performance of his duties.
Applying the doctrine in the present case, we fail to see any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC which would authorize the appellate court to substitute its own ruling over that of the NLRC. There was ample evidence to support the findings of the NLRC. The CA, in a Rule 6517 petition, is limited to a simple review of whether there existed grave abuse of discretion; the CA should not concern itself with the determination of whether the NLRC, after evaluation of the evidence presented before it, had correctly ruled on the merits of the case. The question of intrinsic merits is an issue best left to the labor tribunals which are deemed to have mastery over the subject matter.
Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, particularly where it is in absolute agreement with that of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, are accorded not only respect but even finality and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.23 Thus, the basic issue left for us to resolve is the determination of whether the CA found grave abuse of discretion whose correction called for the consideration of the incident at the MT Sunway vessel as an accident.
In deciding this case, we are not unaware of the doctrine discussed in the case of NFD International Manning Agents, Inc. v. Illescas,26 where the employee, Esmeraldo Illescas (Illescas), also a seafarer, was ordered to carry 25 fire hydrant caps from the deck to the engine workshop, then back to the deck to refit the caps. While carrying a heavy basketful of fire hydrant caps, Illescas felt a sudden snap on his back, with pain that radiated down to the left side of his hips. He immediately informed the ship captain about his condition, and was advised to take pain relievers. As the pain was initially tolerable, he continued with his work. After a few days, the pain became severe, and Illescas suffered difficulty in walking.
In the present case, Sunga did not incur the injury while solely performing his regular duties; an intervening event transpired which brought upon the injury. To repeat, the two other oilers who were supposed to help carry the weight of the 200–kilogram globe valve lost their grasp of the globe valve. As a result, Sunga’s back snapped when the entire weight of the item fell upon him. The sheer weight of the item is designed not to be carried by just one person, but as was observed, meant to be undertaken by several men and expectedly greatly overwhelmed the physical limits of an average person. Notably, this incident cannot be considered as foreseeable, nor can it be reasonably anticipated. Sunga’s duty as a fitter involved changing the valve, not to routinely carry a 200–kilogram globe valve singlehandedly. The loss of his fellow workers’ group was also unforeseen in so far as Sunga was concerned.
In sum, we find that the NLRC did not abuse its discretion. It arrived at a proper decision after fully appreciated of the parties’ arguments and carefully considering the presented evidence. Thus, there was no basis for the CA’s conclusion that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.
WHEREFORE, we hereby GRANT the petition. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated February 25, 2007 in CA–G.R. SP No. 113661, and its Resolution dated September 14, 2011 are SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the December 21, 2009 Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is hereby REINSTATED.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Justice Manuel M. Barrios.
15Montoya v. Transmed, G.R. No. 183329, August 27, 2009, 597 SCRA 334.
16 Bani Rural Bank, Inc., et. al., v. De Guzman, et al., G.R. No. 170904, November 13, 2013.
20People v. Ayola, G.R. No. 138923, September 4, 2001.
23 Park Hotel v. Soriano, 680 SCRA 328.
24 Eighth edition, © 2004.
25 F.B. Moreno, Third Edition, ©1988.
26 G.R. No. 183054, September 29, 2010.
29 G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.