FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 221357. January 25, 2016.]
ARTURO E. ARBOLEDA, JR., petitioner, vs. CENTENNIAL TRANSMARINE, INC., AND/OR SEATEAM MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD., AND/OR MR. EDUARDO R. JABLA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 25, 2016which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 221357 (Arturo E. Arboleda, Jr. v. Centennial Transmarine, Inc., and/or Seateam Management Pte. Ltd., and/or Mr. Eduardo R. Jabla). — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the May 22, 2015 Decision 1 and November 5, 2015 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136384 for failure of petitioner Arturo E. Arboleda, Jr. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission when it awarded permanent and total disability benefits, sickness wage benefits, and attorney's fees in his favor. Instead, the CA found petitioner to be entitled only to the amounts of US$7,465.00 as Grade 11 disability benefits and US$2,252.00 as sickness wage benefits, and deleted the award of attorney's fees.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the mere lapse of the 120-day period does not automatically warrant the payment of permanent and total disability benefits. 3 Moreover, under Section 20 (B) (3) of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract, if a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. 4 This referral to a third doctor has been held by this Court to be a mandatory procedure as a consequence of the provision that it is the company-designated doctor whose assessment should prevail. 5 Therefore, in the absence of a third doctor's resolution of the conflicting assessments in this case, the company-designated physician's assessment of petitioner's health, i.e., that he sustained a Grade 11 disability, should stand. 6
SO ORDERED." JARDELEZA, J., acting member per S.O. No. 2311 dated January 14, 2016. CAIHTE
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 57-65. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justices Florito S. Macalino and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela concurring.
2.Id. at 67-68.
3. See OSG Ship Management Manila, Inc. v. Pellazar, G.R. No. 198367, August 6, 2014, 732 SCRA 280, 292-294.
4.Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. v. Dumadag, G.R. No. 194362, June 26, 2013, 700 SCRA 53, 64.
5.Formerly INC Shipmanagement, Incorporated (now INC Navigation Co. Philippines, Inc.) v. Rosales, G.R. No. 195832, October 1, 2014, 737 SCRA 438, 450.
6. See id. at 453.