FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236700. April 11, 2018.]
DARIO E. DE CASTRO, petitioner, vs.SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES, INC./DS-SCANMAR CREWING SERVICES GMBH/MA. CORAZON INGUILLO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 11, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 236700 (Dario E. De Castro v. Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc./DS-Scanmar Crewing Services GMBH/Ma. Corazon Inguillo). — The Court resolves to DENY the petition and affirm the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 147403 for petitioner's failure to show that the CA committed reversible error in reversing the ruling of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board Panel of Arbitrators.
There is no dispute that petitioner's injury is work-related, and that he is entitled to disability benefits. The issue is how to classify such injury in order to determine the amount of benefits due to him. The company-designated physicians and petitioner's physician of choice diagnosed petitioner to be suffering from plantar fasciitis. However, while the former gave petitioner a Grade 12 partial disability rating corresponding to "depression of the arch of a foot resulting in weak foot" based on the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Ships, the latter found petitioner to be permanently disabled and unfit in any capacity for further sea duties. 1
We uphold the ruling of the CA that the findings of the company-designated physicians must prevail. These were the physicians who examined, treated, and monitored petitioner, and provided him with rehabilitation and physical therapy sessions. Hence, they are in a better position to give a more accurate evaluation of petitioner's health condition. On the other hand, the finding of petitioner's physician of choice was based merely on a single consultation and did not state the physical examinations, tests, and treatments made on petitioner. Petitioner failed to allege, much less, prove that the company-designated physicians were biased in their evaluation of his health condition. Absent any substantial challenge to the competence and skill of the company-designated physicians, there is no reason why their assessment should not be given due credence.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated September 29, 2017 and Resolution dated January 15, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 147403 are AFFIRMED. aScITE
SO ORDERED." Sereno, C.J., on leave; De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See rollo, pp. 28, 39-42.