Corcoro, Jr. v. Magsaysay MOL Marine, Inc.

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 226779. November 10, 2021.]

ALFREDO ANI CORCORO, JR., petitioner,vs. MAGSAYSAY MOL MARINE, INC., MOL SHIP MANAGEMENT CO., LTD., AND FRANCISCO D. MENOR, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 10, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 226779 (Alfredo Ani Corcoro, Jr. v. Magsaysay MOL Marine, Inc., MOL Ship Management Co., Ltd., and Francisco D. Menor). Before Us is the Motion for Reconsideration 1 filed by respondents assailing this Court's Decision 2 dated August 24, 2020 awarding full disability benefits to petitioner Alfredo A. Corcoro (Corcoro) in the amount of US$156,816.00.

In the motion, respondents argued that this Court erred in awarding permanent and total disability benefits amounting to US$156,816.00. The company claimed that such award has no basis. The company argued that the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) entitled IBF JSU/AMOSUP-IMMAJ CBA is applicable during the term of contract of Corcoro. It specifically states that full disability benefits for seafarers with ratings AB and Below shall be at US$90,882.00. Further, respondent company claimed that it entered in a conditional settlement with Corcoro pending the appeal proceedings before the National Labor Relations Commission, where a check was issued in the name of petitioner amounting to US$99,970.00 3 representing the judgment award of the Labor Arbiter (LA). The company claimed that awarding US$156,816.00 would unjustly enrich Corcoro. 4

Respondents also reiterated their arguments that Corcoro's illness is not work-related. The company asserted that the seafarer's work as Messman did not expose him to the risks of developing coronary artery disease. Further, Corcoro failed to present substantial evidence to show the causal connection between the illness he sustained and the work he performed as Messman. The company also argued that Corcoro has a pre-existing illness of hypertension, which caused his myocardial infarction and post operation condition of coronary artery disease. Finally, it is impossible for Corcoro to have contracted the heart disease during the six months he was on board the vessel. 5

Respondents prayed that this Court affirm the Decision of the CA or in the alternative modify the award of full disability benefits from US$156,816.00 to US$99,970.00. 6

The Court finds no reason to reverse its rulings that Corcoro's illness is work-related and that he merits payment of permanent and total disability benefits. The arguments raised by respondent company on the foregoing matters are mere reiterations which have been thoroughly addressed in the Decision 7 dated August 24, 2020. CAIHTE

Anent respondent company's alternative prayer to adjust the award of permanent and total disability benefits from US$156,816.00 to US$99,970.00, the Court denies the same. Contrary to respondent company's assertion that this Court had no basis in awarding Corcoro full disability benefits amounting to US$156,816.00, this Count used as basis the records, specifically the rollo of the CA as no CBA was attached in any of the pleadings filed before this Court when the Decision dated August 24, 2020 was rendered. Attached, as "Annex G" 8 to respondent company's petition for certiorari9 filed with the CA, is Corcoro's position paper filed with the CA. Labeled as "Annex D" 10 in Corcoro's position paper is the CBA entitled ITF Standard Collective Agreement dated January 1, 2012. Section 21, Paragraph (b) of the CBA 11 attached in Corcoro's position paper explicitly states that:

Disability

xxx xxx xxx

b) The disability suffered by the Seafarer shall be determined by a Doctor appointed by the ITF, and the Company shall provide disability compensation to the Seafarer in accordance with the percentage specified in the table below which is appropriate to this disability.

 

DEGREE OF DISABILITY	2012 RATINGS AB & below	OFFICERS
%	US$	US$
50-100	156,816	235,224
x x x	x x x	x x x

 

This Court found no other record to dispute the attached CBA in Corcoro's position paper. To reiterate, it was respondent company itself who included this CBA in its Petition for Certiorari filed with the CA. Thus, it was incumbent upon respondent company to rebut the arguments raised by Corcoro, including his documentary evidence. This Court stresses that respondent company did not even deny this CBA in the proceedings before the CA and this Court.

In the present motion, respondent company, after remaining silent on the provisions of the CBA in its Comment 12 filed with this Court, now introduces another document to support its position that full disability benefits for seafarers with rankings "Able Seaman" and below only amount to US$90,882.00. The Court holds that such additional evidence cannot be introduced for the first time in the motion for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration is a remedy designed for the courts to review its order or judgments based on the parties' arguments and evidence already raised and presented to the courts. The Court generally does not consider evidence submitted for the first time on reconsideration pursuant to the basic principles of fair play, justice and due process. Here, respondent company failed to explain its belated presentation of additional evidence and exemption from the foregoing principles to merit this Court's consideration.

WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 248-271.

2. Id. at 234-247.

3. Id. at 322.

4. Id. at 252-258.

5. Id. at 258-261.

6. Id. at 271.

7. Supra note 2.

8. CA rollo, p. 105.

9. Id. at 3-36.

10. Id. at 126.

11. Id.

12. Rollo, pp. 58-91.