THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235583. January 22, 2018.]
CONAUTIC MARITIME, INC., MARINE PTE. LTD. SINGAPORE, AND MS. CECILIA PERALTA, petitioners,vs. DOMINICO ABKILAN, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 22, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235583 (Conautic Maritime, Inc., Marine Pte. Ltd. Singapore, and Ms. Cecilia Peralta vs. Dominico Abkilan, Jr.). — Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments presented, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA), Fourth Division committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision dated January 31, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 141680 entitled "Conautic Maritime, Inc., Marine PTE. LTD., Singapore and Ms. Cecilia Peralta v. National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division) and Dominico Abkilan, Jr." and its November 6, 2017 Resolution denying reconsideration thereof, as to warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Private respondent Dominico G. Abkilan, Jr. (Dominico) was employed by petitioner Conautic Maritime, Inc. (the Company), a local manning agent of its foreign principal petitioner HR Marine PTE. Ltd. (HR Marine). He was hired as an ordinary seaman on board the MV Zealand Amalia on July 2, 2013. He signed a Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)-approved contract for a period of eight (8) months with a monthly salary of US$643.00. Moreover, his engagement was governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Philippine Seafarers Union (PSU) and the Company, acting as the representative of HR Marine. 1
After suffering symptoms such as dizziness and headaches while on board the vessel, and later diagnosed with Essential Hypertension Stage II, Dominico demanded payment of medical benefits from the Company. The Company, however, refused, prompting him to institute a Complaint for Permanent Disability Benefits, Sickness Allowance, Moral Damages, and Exemplary Damages as well as Attorney's Fees against petitioners on September 11, 2014. 2
On November 28, 2014, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of Dominico. The fallo thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents Conautic Maritime, Inc., HR Marine PTE. Ltd., — Singapore and Cecilia Peralta are hereby ordered to jointly and severally pay complainant, Dominico G. Abkilan, Jr., Permanent Disability Benefits of Eighty Thousand United States Dollars (US$80,000.00) under his CBA, Balance of sickness allowance of US$1,514.00 at the prevailing rate during the time of payment, and ten percent (10%) of the total amount of compensation due to the complainant as attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter in this wise:
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 28 November 2014 is hereby AFFIRMED. The appeal of respondents is DISMISSED not only for non-perfection but for lack of merit as well.
SO ORDERED.
Their Motion for Reconsideration having been partially denied by the NLRC in a Resolution dated June 16, 2015, petitioners elevated the case to the CA via a Petition for Review. In said Resolution, the NLRC noted that petitioners were in fact able to perfect their appeal, but, nevertheless, it found no merit therein.
Agreeing with the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, the CA, in the assailed Decision, held that Dominico is entitled to full disability benefits as a result of his "Essential Hypertension Stage II" which occurred during the effectivity of his employment contract. 3 The fallo of the assailed Decision reads: DETACa
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari is DENIED. The June 16, 2015 Resolution, issued by Public Respondent National Labor Relations Commission — 2nd Division in LAC OFW (M) 04-000315 (NCR OFW (M) 09-11324-14), partly granting its own April 27, 2015 Resolution, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's November 28, 2014 Decision, in NLRC Case No. OFW (M) 09-11324-14, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.4
Finding no reason to reconsider its Decision, the CA issued the questioned Resolution 5 dated November 6, 2017 denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.
Hence the instant petition.
A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should only cover questions of law. 6 Pure issues of fact may not be the proper subject of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 7 This is consistent with the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. Furthermore, the CA's factual determination is generally final and conclusive and this Court will not review them on appeal, 8 more so when its findings are in agreement with those of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Generally, the Court cannot be tasked to go over the evidence submitted by the parties and analyze and weigh them to ascertain if the lower courts were correct in their appreciation of the evidence. 9
While there are indeed exceptions to this rule, 10 petitioners failed to show that the instant case falls under any of the recognized exceptions. Thus, the findings of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC and the CA, are binding upon this Court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed January 31, 2017 Decision and November 6, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141680 are AFFIRMED. (Martires, J., on leave)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 16.
2.Id. at 18.
3.Id. at 21.
4.Id. at 25.
5.Id. at 28-29.
6. Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (Rule 45 of the Rules of Court)
7.La Union Cement Workers Union v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 174621, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 456, 462.
8.Fernando Co v. Line Vargas, G.R. No. 195167, November 16, 2011, citing Sps. Andrada v. Pilhino Sales Corporation, G.R. No. 156448, 23 February 2011; Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 159490, 18 February 2008, 546 SCRA 150; Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., 481 Phil. 550 (2004).
9.La Union Cement Workers Union v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 174621, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 456, 462.
10. See Development Bank of the Philippines v. Traders Royal Bank, G.R. No. 171982, August 18, 2010, 628 SCRA 404.