8/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly unfit to work, the same did not show if Sales' unfitness was due to the accident that he alleged. On reconsideration, the NLRC awarded Sales disability benefits in accordance with the Grade 11 assessment issued by the company-designated physician. Sales appealed the NLRC decision and resolution with the CA on certiorari. On January 21, 2011, the CA, Special Fifth Division, ruled in favor of Sales. The CA found that Sales had been employed with CTI years prior to his accident in 2006. The lower back pain manifested during his last tour of duty. Sales' job as pumpman entailed tedious manual tasks that aggravated the work related pressure on his lower-back. The physicians who examined him found his injury to be work-oriented, as it could have developed over the years he was working as seaman for CTI. Hence, his injury is compensable. Anent payment of disability benefits, the CA held that Sales is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits. While the disability grading of the company-designated physician and Sales' physician varied, the CA held that both physicians assessed Sales to have suffered from excruciating back pain. CTI is precluded from questioning the assessment of Sales' physician because the company allowed Sales to seek the opinion of a second physician. The CA held that Sales' disability went beyond 120 days since his repatriation. The CA emphasized that permanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work or work of a similar nature that one was trained for or accustomed to perform. In this case, Sales was awarded permanent and total disability benefits amounting to US$78,750 because he could neither return to work as pumpman nor as a seaman in any other capacity. He was also awarded P25,000.00 moral damages, P25,000.00 exemplary damages and 10% attorney's fees. CTI moved to reconsider the CA decision but the same was denied in the Resolution[12] dated April 12, 2011. Hence, the instant petition. Based on the facts, this Court holds that Sales' injury is compensable. It is undisputed that Sales has been in the employ of CTI since February 2000.[13] Over six years later or in May 2006, Sales reported his back pain to the company for which he was medically repatriated. Upon his return to the Philippines, Sales was further examined by the company-designated physician and was assessed to have degenerative changes of his lumbar spine. From the foregoing, this Court agrees with the CA that Sales' condition could have developed over the years he was working as seaman for CTI. Sales' job as pumpman entailed manual labor, and his lower back pain could have manifested only during his tour of duty in May 2006. While there may be no records on Sales' accident, facts concerning the nature of his work, the longevity of his service with CTI and his persistent back pains on board the vessel and subsequent repatriation due to such back pain, sufficiently establish that his condition is attributable to his work and, as such, entitles him to compensation. The company-designated physician also found Sales' condition to be work-related.[14] In this wise, CTI’s emphasis on Section 20(D) of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) finds no application in the instant case. Said provision reads: Section 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65532 3/7