SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 225190. July 29, 2019.]

EFREN J. JULLEZA , petitioner, vs. ORIENT LINE PHILIPPINES, INC.,

ORIENT NAVIGATION CORPORATION AND MACARIO DELA PEÑA , *
respondents.

DECISION

CAGUIOA , J : p

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated December 16, 2015 and Resolution 3
dated June 16, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136290, which
granted in part respondents' petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
and found petitioner to be entitled only to partial permanent disability benefits.
Facts
The antecedent facts as summarized by the CA are as follows:
Private respondent [petitioner herein] was employed by petitioners
[respondents herein] as a bosun on board MV Orient Phoenix. After undergoing
the required pre-employment medical examination (PEME), he was certi ed as
t for sea duty and hence, signed a contract on 21 November 2011 for a period
of nine (9) months. The aforesaid employment was covered by the IBF-
JSU/PSU-IMMAJ Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Meanwhile, for lack of
a replacement, the employment of private respondent was extended.
On 19 December 2012, private respondent allegedly slipped while
cleaning the cargo hold under bad weather condition. AB Rolen Magalona
wanted to bring him to the hospital for medical attention; however, the ship
master advised private respondent to just wait a while until his extended
contract ends on 25 December 2012 and thereafter have his medical check up.
In the meantime, private respondent was given medication to alleviate the pain
on his lower back.
Upon his return to the Philippines, private respondent went to the
company-designated physician on 27 December 2012. Several tests and
therapy sessions were done until 21 February 2013 when the company-
designated [physician] certi ed that private respondent was suffering from
bilateral nephrolithiasis and lumbar spondylosis. They likewise informed
petitioners in a letter dated 23 April 2013 that the disability grading of private
respondent is Grade 8, i.e., loss of 2/3 lifting power of the trunk.
On 04 May 2013, private respondent consulted an independent physician,
Dr. Rogelio Catapang, Jr.; and on 07 May 2013, he led a complaint for illness
allowance, disability bene ts, reimbursement of medical expenses and
damages. In his Medical Report dated 29 June 2013, Dr. Catapang stated that
private respondent is unfit for further strenuous duties.
Disputing the claim, petitioners countered that the bilateral
nephrolithiasis suffered by private respondent is not work related as certi ed by
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 the company-designated [physician]; rather, it is caused by a combination of
genetic predisposition, diet and water intake. Meanwhile, the lumbar
spondylosis was classi ed as Grade 8 disability only. Petitioners likewise
contended that the illness or injury did not result from an accident, as there was
no con rmation or validation of such incident except only the self-serving
statements of private respondent and his peer, AB Magalona. Consequently,
private respondent is not entitled to the disability compensation granted under
Paragraphs 28.1 and 28.4, Article 28 of the CBA. 4

LA Decision

The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that petitioner gured in an accident, which caused
his lumbar spondylosis. 5 The LA found that petitioner's medical problem had not been
resolved following the Grade 8 disability rating of the company-designated physician
and the ndings of his independent doctor which showed that it was impossible for
petitioner to be gainfully employed as a bosun. 6 Given this, the LA ruled that petitioner
was entitled to permanent total disability bene ts following the IBF-JSU/AMOSUP-
IMMAJ Collective Bargaining Agreement 7 (CBA). 8 The dispositive portion of the LA
Decision 9 states: cDEHIC

WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered

ordering respondents ORIENT LINE PHILIPPINES, INC. AND/OR ORIENT
NAVIGATION CORP. and MR. MACARIO DELA PE[Ñ]A liable to pay, jointly and
severally, complainant EFREN J. JULLEZA, the amount of US$90,882.00 or its
Philippine Peso equivalent at the time of payment, representing the latter's
permanent total disability bene ts plus US$9,088.20 or ten percent (10%) of
the total award, as and by way of attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED. 10

NLRC Decision

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) found that respondents failed
to refute the fact that petitioner slipped while he and AB Rolen M. Magalonga 1 1 (AB
Magalonga) were washing the cargo hold, thus petitioner is entitled to bene ts under
the CBA for having met an accident while on board the ship. 1 2 The NLRC a rmed the
LA that petitioner is entitled to permanent total disability because his incapacity
exceeded 120 days. The NLRC also a rmed the award of attorney's fees. 1 3 The
dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision 1 4 states:
WHEREFORE , the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the
Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated February 28, 2014 is AFFIRMED en toto.
SO ORDERED. 15

CA Decision

In the assailed CA Decision, the CA reversed the NLRC, the dispositive portion of
which states:
WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Certiorari is
GRANTED IN PART . The Decision dated 02 May 2014 and the Resolution
dated 11 June 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as it a rmed the grant of Ninety
Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Two Dollars (US$90,882.00) as disability
bene ts. Instead, petitioners ORIENT LINE PHILIPPINES, INC. and/or ORIENT
NAVIGATION CORPORATION and/or ACARIO DELA PEÑA are ORDERED TO
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 PAY private respondent EFREN J. JULLEZA total permanent disability bene t
(Grade 8) in the amount of Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-Five
Dollars (US$16,795.00) or its Philippine Peso equivalent at the time of payment,
and One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy[-]Nine Dollars and 50/100
(US$1,679.50) as and by way of attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED. 16

In reversing the NLRC, the CA ruled that the company-designated physician has
determined the nal suggested disability grading of petitioner, which was Grade 8 due
to loss of 2/3 lifting power of the trunk. 1 7 The CA ruled that the company-designated
physician acknowledged that petitioner suffered from partial permanent disability. 1 8
The CA also ruled that the failure to consult a third doctor, which is part of the
con ict-resolution procedure, ties the hands of the Court and therefore the certi cation
of the company-designated physician must be upheld. 1 9 The CA also ruled that a
review of the records revealed that petitioner may have not met an accident which
would place him under the coverage of the CBA for compensation arising from an
accident while on board the ship. From the records, petitioner only complained of lower
back pain, and his only support for his claim of accident was the unnotarized
typewritten account of a certain AB Magalonga, which was not submitted to the ship
master or to respondents. 2 0
The CA a rmed the award of attorney's fees as respondents failed to pay
petitioner's disability bene ts even if the company-designated physician already found
them to be liable for petitioner's partial permanent disability benefits. 2 1
Petitioner led a motion for reconsideration but this was denied by the CA.
Hence, this Petition.
Issue
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether the CA acted correctly in granting
the petition for certiorari.
The Court's Ruling
The Petition is denied.
The CA acted correctly in reversing the NLRC and LA.
Petitioner failed to comply with the
conflict-resolution procedure under
the CBA.

It is undisputed that petitioner suffered from lumbar spondylosis. But the

company-designated and the independent physicians arrived at different ndings. The
company-designated physician, who saw petitioner for medical check-up for at least 10
instances from December 2012 to April 2013, 2 2 issued his medical ndings on April
23, 2013, or 119 days from petitioner's repatriation on December 25, 2012. 2 3 The
company-designated physician's report states:
Case of 55-year-old male with Lumbar Spondylosis.
His nal suggested disability grading is Grade 8 — loss of 2/3 lifting
power of the trunk. 2 4
Unsatis ed, petitioner consulted an independent doctor on May 4, 2013. His own
doctor saw him twice 2 5 and issued his Medical Report 2 6 subsequently on June 29,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 2013. The report states:
Mr. Julleza continues to complain and suffer low back pain. Diagnosis:
Disc Dessication L2-S1; Herniated Nucleus Pulposus L2-S1. The pain is made
worse by prolonged standing and bending. He has di culty climbing up and
down the stairs. He has lost his pre-injury capacity and is UNFIT to work back
at his previous occupation. 2 7
Given the con ict between the ndings of the two doctors, the provision of the
CBA regarding the resolution of such conflict applies. The CBA states:
Article 28: Disability
xxx xxx xxx
28.2.    The disability suffered by the seafarer shall be determined by a doctor
appointed by the Company. If a doctor appointed by or on behalf of the
seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be nominated
jointly between the Company and the Union and the decision of this doctor
shall be final and binding on both parties. 2 8
I n Gargallo v. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc. , 2 9 the Court ruled that the
seafarer is required to comply with the con ict-resolution procedure, which was the
same under the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard
Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and the CBA. Thus:
Moreover, petitioner failed to comply with the prescribed procedure under
the afore-quoted Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC on the joint
appointment by the parties of a third doctor, in case the seafarer's personal
doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician's t to work
assessment. The IBF CBA similarly outlined the procedure, viz.:
25.2.    The disability suffered by the seafarer shall be determined by a
doctor appointed by the Company. If a doctor appointed by or on
behalf of the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor
may be nominated jointly between the Company and the Union and
the decision of this doctor shall be final and binding on both parties.
xxx xxx xxx
In the recent case of Veritas Maritime Corporation v. Gepanaga, Jr. ,
involving an almost identical provision of the CBA, the Court reiterated the well-
settled rule that the seafarer's non-compliance with the mandated con ict-
resolution procedure under the POEA-SEC and the CBA militates against his
claims, and results in the a rmance of the t to work certi cation of the
company-designated physician, thus: ATICcS

The [POEA-SEC] and the CBA clearly provide that when a

seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board
the vessel, his tness or un tness for work shall be determined by
the company-designated physician. If the physician appointed by
the seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician's
assessment, the opinion of a third doctor may be agreed jointly
between the employer and the seafarer to be the decision final and
binding on them.
Thus, while petitioner had the right to seek a second and
even a third opinion, the nal determination of whose decision
must prevail must be done in accordance with an agreed
procedure. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not avail of this
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 procedure; hence, we have no option but to declare that the
company-designated doctor's certi cation is the nal
determination that must prevail. x x x. 3 0

Further, with regard to the procedure for referral to a third doctor, jurisprudence
has set that it is the duty of the seafarer to signify his intent to refer the con ict
between the ndings of the company-designated physician and that of his own doctor
to a third doctor. 3 1 After notice from the seafarer, the company must then commence
the process of choosing the third doctor. 3 2
Here, after receipt of his own doctor's medical report, petitioner did not show any
proof that he sent the medical report to respondents and signify to respondents that he
would like to refer the con icting medical ndings to a third doctor. The CA was
therefore correct that absent compliance with the con ict-resolution procedure, the
ndings of the company-designated physician that petitioner has a Grade 8 disability
rating should prevail over that of the seafarer's doctor. ISCDEA

Petitioner's injury was not a result of

an accident.

Both the LA and the NLRC ruled that petitioner's lumbar spondylosis arose from
an accident. The CA, on the other hand, ruled that petitioner was not involved in an
accident while on board the ship. A review of the records reveals that the CA was
correct.
An accident has been de ned in NFD International Manning Agents, Inc. v.
Illescas 3 3 as follows:
Black's Law Dictionary de nes "accident" as "[a]n unintended and
unforeseen injurious occurrence; something that does not occur in the usual
course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated, x x x [a]n
unforeseen and injurious occurrence not attributable to mistake, negligence,
neglect or misconduct."
The Philippine Law Dictionary de nes the word "accident" as "[t]hat
which happens by chance or fortuitously, without intention and design, and
which is unexpected, unusual and unforeseen."
"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.
3 4 (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)

Here, support for petitioner's claim that he met an accident comes only from his
own handwritten statement 3 5 and that of AB Magalonga who issued an unnotarized
statement dated December 22, 2012, 3 6 both of which state that petitioner slipped and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 fell, with his butt, leg and back hitting the oor. However, the Medical Report for
Seafarer signed by Capt. Jeremias S. Ferrer, indicates that on December 19, 2012,
petitioner complained of back pain above the waistline but that this arose from
sickness. The report also says that the possible cause was weather or sea condition,
while the tick boxes for fall, tripping, hitting, or slipping were unchecked. 3 7 The fact
that petitioner simply complained of lower back pain was con rmed by the initial
medical report of the company-designated physician, which states:
This is a case of 55-year-old Bosun, who complained of pain on the lower
back radiating to the right thigh on December 19, 2012 onboard sea vessel. x x x
38

Even petitioner's own doctor stated in his June 29, 2013 Medical Report that
petitioner experienced gradual onset of low back pain after lifting heavy objects on
December 19, 2012, thus:
x x x The condition apparently started on 19 December 2012; while on
board MV Orient as Bosun; the patient claimed that after discharging and
loading procedures in China involving lifting heavy objects; he experienced
gradual onset of low back pain. He self medicated with emollients which
provided some relief and continued to work. Past Medical History revealed on
August 2010; he experienced on and off lower back pain which was relieved by
intake of Mefenamic Acid. The above condition increased in intensity prompting
the patient [to] request for medical checkup while in China, but was advised by
his superior to have it done in Manila. x x x 3 9
The totality of the foregoing evidence attached to the records convinces the
Court that the CA was correct in ruling that petitioner was not involved in an accident.
The Court gives more weight to the reports of the ship captain, company-designated
physician, and petitioner's own doctor, all of which are silent on the fact that he slipped
and fell. In fact, the reports of both doctors reveal that petitioner had been experiencing
back pain since August 2010 and his back pain got worse on December 19, 2012, a few
days before the end of his contract, when he was carrying heavy objects.
Other than his allegation and the unnotarized statement of his companion,
petitioner failed to present any evidence to support his claim that he met an accident
on December 19, 2012. The Court's ruling in Island Overseas Transport Corp. v. Beja 4 0
applies as, similarly, the seafarer therein claimed that his knee injury was a result of an
accident but failed to present evidence to support his allegation:
We, however, note that Beja has not presented any proof of his allegation
that he met an accident on board the vessel. There was no single evidence to
show that Beja was injured due to an accident while doing his duties in the
vessel. No accident report existed nor any medical report issued indicating that
he met an accident while on board. Beja's claim was simply based on pure
allegations. Yet, evidence was submitted by petitioners disputing Beja's
allegation. The certi cations by the Master of the vessel and Chief Engineer
a rmed that Beja never met an accident on board nor was he injured while in
the performance of his duties under their command. Beja did not dispute these
certi cations nor presented any contrary evidence. "It is an in exible rule that a
party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial
evidence, for any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand
without offending due process." 4 1
The same is true for petitioner. The back pain, which he had been experiencing as
far back as August 2010, and which worsened while he was carrying heavy objects, was
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 not an unlooked for mishap, occurrence, or fortuitous event. It did not arise from an
unusual circumstance. It did not arise from a calamity, casualty, catastrophe, disaster,
or an undesirable or unfortunate happening as it would seem to have developed
through time given the nature of his work.
Petitioner is entitled to benefits under
the PO EA-SE C.

The LA and the NLRC vis-à-vis the CA ruled differently on whether petitioner is
entitled to bene ts under the CBA. The LA and the NLRC both ruled that petitioner,
having been involved in an accident, is entitled under the stipulations in the CBA. The CA,
on the other hand, ruled that petitioner is entitled to the bene ts under the POEA-SEC
since his injury did not arise from an accident. The Court agrees with the CA.
The provisions of the CBA state:
Article 28: Disability
28.1.  A seafarer who suffers permanent disability as a result of an accident
whilst in the employment of the Company regardless of fault, including
accidents occurring while travelling to or from the ship, and whose ability
to work as a seafarer is reduced as a result thereof, but excluding
permanent disability due to wilful acts, shall in addition to sick pay, be
entitled to compensation according to the provisions of this Agreement.
28.2.    The disability suffered by the seafarer shall be determined by a doctor
appointed by the Company. If a doctor appointed by or on behalf of the
seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be nominated
jointly between the Company and the Union and the decision of this doctor
shall be final and binding on both parties.
28.3.    The Company shall provide disability compensation to the seafarer in
accordance with APPENDIX 3, with any differences, including less than ten
percent (10%) disability, to be pro rata.
28.4.  A seafarer whose disability, in accordance with 28.2 above is assessed at
fty percent (50%) or more under the attached APPENDIX 3 shall, for the
purpose of this paragraph, be regarded as permanently un t for further sea
service in any capacity and be entitled to one hundred percent (100%)
compensation. Furthermore, any seafarer assessed at less than fty
percent (50%) disability but certi ed as permanently un t for further sea
service in any capacity by the Company-nominated doctor, shall also be
entitled to one hundred percent (100%) compensation. Any disagreement
as to the assessment or entitlement shall be resolved in accordance with
clause 28.2 above.
28.5.  Any payment effected under 28.1 to 28.4 above, shall be without prejudice
to any claim for compensation made in law, but may be deducted from
any settlement in respect of such claims. 4 2 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
A reading of the foregoing shows that it only covers disabilities arising from
accidents. In fact, in Fil-Star Maritime Corp. v. Rosete , 4 3 the Court ruled that Article 28
of the ITF-JSU/AMOSUP CBA, which also covers petitioner, is limited to injuries arising
from accidents, thus:
The CBA provisions on disability are not applicable to respondent's case
because Article 28 thereon speci cally refers to disability sustained after an
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 accident. Article 28 of the ITF-JSU/AMOSUP CBA specifically states that:
Article 28: Disability
28.1.    A seafarer who suffers permanent disability as a
result of an accident whilst in the employment of the Company
regardless of fault, including accidents occurring while travelling
to or from the ship, and whose ability to work as a seafarer as a
result thereof, but excluding permanent disability due to wilful
acts, shall be in addition to sick pay, be entitled to compensation
according to the provisions of this Agreement. x x x 4 4 (Emphasis
in the original)
The Court likewise ruled in Island Overseas Transport Corp. v. Beja , 4 5 which
involved the same clause 28.1, that it only covers injuries resulting from accidents. And
since the seafarer's knee injury was not proven to have been the result of an accident,
his disability benefits should be based on the POEA-SEC and not the CBA. 4 6
Following the foregoing, and given that petitioner's injury did not arise from an
accident, the provisions under the POEA-SEC applies to petitioner. Section 20 (A) (6) of
the POEA-SEC states: EDCTIa

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:
xxx xxx xxx
6. In case of permanent total or partial disability of the seafarer
caused by either injury or illness the seafarer shall be
compensated in accordance with the schedule of bene ts
enumerated in Section 32 of [t]his Contract . Computation of his
bene ts arising from an illness or disease shall be governed by the rates
and the rules of compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease
was contracted.
The disability shall be based solely on the disability gradings
provided under Section 32 of this Contract, and shall not be
measured or determined by the number of days a seafarer is
under treatment or the number of days in which sickness
allowance was paid . (Additional emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The CA was therefore correct in awarding to petitioner disability bene ts under
the POEA-SEC corresponding to a Grade 8 disability rating, which is Sixteen Thousand
Seven Hundred Ninety-Five US Dollars (US$16,795.00).
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition is DENIED . The Decision dated
December 16, 2015 and Resolution dated June 16, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 136290 are AFFIRMED .
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Perlas-Bernabe, J.C. Reyes, Jr. and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
* Macario is also stated as "Acario" while Dela Peña also appears as "Dela Pena" in some parts
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 of the records.
1. Rollo, pp. 27-56, excluding Annexes.
2. Id. at 62-71. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and concurred in by Associate
Justices Rodil V. Zalameda and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes.
3. Id. at 73-75.

4. Id. at 63-64.
5. Id. at 343-344.
6. Id. at 344-345.
7. Id. at 203-258.
8. Id. at 346.

9. Id. at 339-347. Penned by Labor Arbiter Fe S. Cellan.

10. Id. at 347.
11. Also stated as "Magalona" in some parts of the records.
12. Rollo, pp. 117-118.
13. Id. at 118.

14. Id. at 113-119. Penned by Commissioner Numeriano D. Villena, with Commissioner Angelo
Ang Palaña and Presiding Commissioner Herminio V. Suelo concurring.

15. Id. at 119.

16. Id. at 70-71.
17. Id. at 67.
18. Id.
19. See id. at 68.

20. Id. at 70.

21. Id.
22. Id. at 198, 263-264.
23. Id. at 134.

24. Id. at 265.

25. See id. at 200.
26. Id. at 200-202.
27. Id. at 201.
28. Id. at 224.

29. 769 Phil. 915 (2015).

30. Id. at 930-931; citations omitted.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 31. Yialos Manning Services, Inc. v. Borja, G.R. No. 227216, July 4, 2018, p. 5.
32. Id., citing Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. v. Constantino, 738 Phil. 564, 576 (2014).
33. 646 Phil. 244 (2010).
34. Id. at 260; citation omitted.

35. CA rollo, p. 109.

36. Id. at 110.
37. Id. at 111.
38. Id. at 243.
39. Rollo, p. 200.

40. 774 Phil. 332 (2015).

41. Id. at 343-344; citation omitted.
42. Rollo, pp. 224-225.
43. 677 Phil. 262 (2011).

44 Id. at 275.
45. Supra note 38.
46. See NFD International Manning Agents, Inc. v. Illescas, supra note 33, at 259, where the
Court held that even if the seafarer was not involved in an accident, he was still entitled
to the benefits under the CBA. The stipulations in the CBA, however, cover even injuries
not arising from an accident. The CBA stipulations therein state:
  Art. 13. (Compensation for Death and Disability).

  If a seafarer/officer, due to no fault of his own, suffers permanent disability

as a result of an accident while serving on board or while traveling to or from
the vessel on Company's business or due to marine peril , and as a result, his
ability to work is permanently reduced, totally or partially, the Company shall
pay him a disability compensation which including the amounts stipulated by
the POEA's Rules and Regulations Part II, Section C, shall be maximum of
US$70,000.00 for ratings and US$90,000.00 for officers.
  The degree of disability, which the Company, subject to this Agreement, is liable to pay,
shall be determined by a doctor appointed by the Company. If a doctor appointed by the
Seafarer and his Union disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed
jointly between the Company and the seafarer and his/her Union, and third doctor's
decision shall be final and binding on both parties.
  A seafarer who is disabled as a result of an injury, and whose permanent disability in
accordance with the POEA schedule is assessed at 50% or more shall, for the purpose of
this paragraph, be regarded as permanently disabled and be entitled to 100%
compensation (USD90,000 for officers and USD70,000 for ratings).

  A seafarer/officer who is disabled as a result of any injury , and who is

assessed as less than 50% permanently disabled, but permanently unfit for
further service at sea in any capacity, shall also be entitled to a 100%
compensation . (Additional emphasis in the last paragraph supplied)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com