FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247440. August 14, 2019.]
ELMOR B. CAÑAL, petitioner, vs.FAIR SHIPPING CORPORATION, SANTOKU SENPAKU CO. LTD., * AND CAPTAIN SALVADOR SALTO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 14, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247440 (Elmor B. Cañal v. Fair Shipping Corporation, Santoku Senpaku Co. Ltd., and Captain Salvador Salto)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the January 22, 2019 Decision 2 and the May 16, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 146420 denying petitioner Elmor B. Cañal's (petitioner) complaint for total and permanent disability benefits against respondents Fair Shipping Corporation, Santoku Senpaku Co., Ltd., and Captain Salvador Salto (respondents).
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory post-employment medical examination within three (3) days from his repatriation on April 17, 2018. 4 His claim that he was denied medical assistance when he first reported to respondents' office upon repatriation was not substantiated, as in fact, the Repatriation Crew Report Checklist 5 which he himself signed indicated that he was alright and that he had no request for any medical treatment. 6 It is settled that a seafarer claiming disability benefits is required to submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within 3 working days from repatriation. 7 Failure to comply with such requirement results in the forfeiture of the seafarer's claim for disability benefits, save for exceptional circumstances, 8 none of which are present in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* "Santoku Sempaku Co., Ltd." in some parts of the rollo.
1.Rollo, pp. 11-30.
2.Id. at 34-44. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel Paredes with Associate Justices Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring.
3.Id. at 45-46.
4. See id. at 41.
5.Id. at 143.
6. See id. at 41.
7.De Andres v. Diamond H Marine Services & Shipping Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 217345, July 12, 2017, 831 SCRA 129, 146.
8. There are, however, exceptions to the rule: (a) when the seafarer is incapacitated to report to the employer upon his repatriation; and (b) when the employer inadvertently or deliberately refused to submit the seafarer to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician. (see id. at 146-147.)