NFD INTERNATIONAL MANNING vs ILLESCAS

FACTS:
Esmeraldo C. Illescas entered into a Contract of Employment with petitioner NFD International Manning Agents, Inc.
Under the contract, respondent was employed as Third Officer of M/V Shinrei for a period of nine months. After
respondent passed the pre-employment medical examination, he boarded the vessel and started performing his job.
when respondent had been on board the vessel, the captain and the chief officer ordered respondent to carry 25 fire
hydrant caps from the deck to the engine workshop, then back to the deck to refit the caps. The next day, while
carrying a heavy basketful of fire hydrant caps, respondent felt a sudden snap on his back. He immediately informed
the ship captain about his condition, and he 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 respondent had difficulty walking.
Respondent was brought to a clinic in Japan and was diagnosed to be suffering from lumbago and sprain. The doctor
advised Illescas avoid lifting heavy objects and get further examination and treatment if the symptoms persisted
Despite the lighter work assigned to respondent, he continued to experience excruciating pain, until a doctor declared
that respondent was unfit to work, and recommended that respondent return home for further management.
petitioners received a letter from Illescas counsel, demanding the payment of disability benefit.
ISSUE: WhetherIllescas can claim payment for benefit due to accident
RULING:
Where the injury resulted from the performance ofa duty, like carrying heavy basketful of fire hydrant caps, it cannot
be said tobe the result of an accident, that is, an unlooked for mishap, occurrence, orfortuitous eventit is common
knowledge that carrying heavy objects cancause back injury.The Court holds that the snap on the back of
respondentwas not an accident, but an injury sustained by respondent from carrying theheavy basketful of fire
hydrant caps, which injury resulted in his disability.The injury cannot be said to be the result of an accident, that is, an
unlookedfor mishap, occurrence, or fortuitous event, because the injury resulted fromthe performance of a duty.
Although respondent may not have expected theinjury, yet, it is common knowledge that carrying heavy objects can
causeback injury, as what happened in this case. Hence, the injury cannot beviewed as unusual under the
circumstances, and is not synonymous with theterm accident as defined above