SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228068. March 14, 2018.]
MARIUS A. ELGINCOLIN, petitioner,vs. PACC SHIPPING PHILS., INC., U-MING MARINE TRANSPORT CORP., AND JUVILYN L. BATAC-ANAYA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 March 2018which reads as follows: HSAcaE
"G.R. No. 228068 (Marius A. Elgincolin vs. PACC Shipping Phils., Inc., U-Ming Marine Transport Corp., and Juvilyn L. Batac-Anaya). — Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by Marius A. Elgincolin (petitioner), assailing the twin resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated June 9, 2016 2 and September 22, 2016 3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 145348. In the assailed resolutions, the CA denied the petition for certiorari, ruled that the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) did not commit any grave abuse of discretion and affirmed the NLRC's findings denying petitioner's permanent total disability benefits. 4
The Antecedents
Petitioner was deployed by PACC Shipping Phils., Inc., U-Ming Marine Transport Corp. and Juvilyn L. Batac-Anaya (respondents) to work, as a Carpenter for a term of twelve (12) months on board the vessel M/V Asia Cement No. 2, pursuant to a Philippine Overseas Employment Agency-approved contract.
Petitioner underwent a series of tests including physical, mental and psychological examinations and was declared fit to work 5 by the respondents' accredited physician before he embarked on his vessel of assignment on July 4, 2012.
On May 25, 2013, petitioner executed a request for repatriation. 6 it was indicated therein that his request for resignation and repatriation was due to a finish contract.
Petitioner was repatriated on June 18, 2013. 7 Three days later, he reported to the agency where he signed and acknowledged a Newly Signed-Off Crew Clearance Slip which states that petitioner's cause of discharge was due to finished contract. The clearance slip likewise contains the remarks "No Health Complaint." Petitioner signed beside the said remark. 8
Three months after having finished his term of employment, petitioner filed a complaint for permanent and total disability benefits, salary allowance, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
Petitioner alleged in his complaint that while he was still on duty aboard the ship, he suffered a bad fall and smashed against the steel railings resulting to severe pains of his waist down to his lower extremities and instead of being provided with medical treatment, the master of the vessel gave him pain relievers. He further alleged that while he was able to perform his duties after the accident, the pains on his back down to his waist reoccurs every time he performs physically strenuous and laborious job which prompted him to request for an earlier repatriation. 9
Petitioner also claims that he reported for the post-medical period on June 21, 2013 but was advised by the crewing manager to wait for the approval of the Foreign Principal. It was only after a month when no approval came that he sought medical treatment from Central Luzon District Hospital. 10
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the petitioner. The NLRC however, reversed the decision of the LA and ruled that the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to support his claims while the documentary evidence presented by the respondents clearly showed that the petitioner was disembarked due to a finished contract and not for medical reasons. 11
Unperturbed, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.
On June 9, 2016, the CA rendered a Resolution 12 denying the petition for certiorari. The CA found that petitioner failed to attach material portions of the record to support his allegations. Petitioner did not provide copies of the Complaint, the National Chinese Seaman's Union Collective Bargaining Agreement and legible copies of the medical records. The CA held that petitioner failed to comply with Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which requires a petition for certiorari to be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof and copies of all pleadings and document relevant or pertinent thereto. The non-compliance of which gives ground for the CA to dismiss the petition as provided for under Section 3 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. 13
The CA further held that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The findings of facts and conclusion of the NLRC were supported by substantial evidence which shows that petitioner's repatriation was due to an expired employment contract and that no medical complaint was brought forward by the petitioner.
The dispositive portion of the CA Resolution dated June 9, 2016 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. 14
Petitioner sought a reconsideration of the decision, but the same was denied by the CA in its Resolution 15 dated September 22, 2016.
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner raises the following errors committed by the CA:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN DENYING THE PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES TO THE PETITIONER, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:
I. IN ITS FINDINGS THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT MEDICALLY REPATRIATED AND HE DID NOT REPORT WITHIN THE THREE-DAY POST MEDICAL PERIOD; and
II. IN ITS FINDING THAT PETITIONER'S ILLNESS IS NOT WORK RELATED.
Ruling of the Court
The Petition is denied.
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It is not the function of this Court to examine, review or evaluate the evidence all over again. 16 A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should cover only questions of law, thus:
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. (Emphasis and underscoring Ours) AcICHD
Here, the issue raised by the petitioner is clearly a question of fact which requires a review of the evidence presented. It is a settled rule that findings of facts of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, and affirmed by the CA in due course, are conclusive on this Court. 17
In any case, the CA correctly upheld the findings of the NLRC that the petitioner was repatriated due to a finished contract and that he did not report within the three-day post medical period.
It is a basic rule of evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation. If he claims a right granted by law, he must prove his claim by competent evidence, relying on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his opponent. 18
In this case, the petitioner is urging the Court to believe him without proper and substantial evidence. The records of the case is bereft of any evidence presented by the petitioner to prove that he was suffering from illness while on board the vessel, that his request for repatriation was due to said illness and that he requested for medical attention. Moreover, as found by the NLRC, the documents presented by the respondents clearly show that the petitioner disembarked due to a finished contract and he had no medical complaints. 19
Hence, the CA did not err in holding that the petitioner was not medically repatriated and that instead of reporting for the required three-day post medical period needed to claim disability benefits as provided for under Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, 20 petitioner reported for clearance purposes only.
The CA also did not err in finding that the petitioner's illness is not work-related.
For disability to be compensable under Section 20 (A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, two elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract. 21
It is not sufficient to establish that the seafarer's illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled. 22 The claimant-seafarer must still prove by substantial evidence that his work conditions caused or, at least, increased the risk of contracting the disease. This is because awards of compensation cannot rest entirely on bare assertions and presumptions. In order to establish compensability of a non-occupational disease, reasonable proof of work-connection is sufficient. 23
Here, the medical documents submitted by petitioner did not state that his plasma cell myeloma/multiple myeloma was caused or aggravated by his carpentry work or alleged fall on board the respondents' vessel. 24 Medical reports also provide that the definitive cause of multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer, is still unknown although research has suggested several factors may be risk factors or contribute to multiple myeloma development. 25 In sum, petitioner failed to provide reasonable proof of work connection between his illness and his work aboard private respondent's vessel.
Lastly, petitioner is not entitled to attorney's fees.
Attorney's fees are not awarded as a matter of course every time a party wins. The Court does not put a premium on the right to litigate. On occasions that those fees are awarded, the basis for the grant must be clearly expressed in the decision of the court. 26 In this case, the CA denied petitioner's claim based on just, valid and legal grounds.
Based on the foregoing discussion, the Court finds that the CA did not err in denying petitioner's claim for permanent total disability benefits and attorney's fees as petitioner's illness is neither work-related nor did he comply with the reportorial requirement needed to claim disability benefits.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 145348 dated June 9, 2016 and September 22, 2016 are AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-41.
2.Id. at 44-56.
3.Id. at 57-58.
4.Id. at 47.
5.Id. at 19.
6.Id. at 28.
7.Id. at 21.
8.Id. at 64.
9.Id. at 47-49.
10.Id. at 49.
11.Id. at 50.
12.Id. at 44-56.
13.Section 3. Contents of and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. x x x.
It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto
xxx xxx xxx
The failure of the petitioner to comply any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
14.Rollo, p. 55.
15. Id. at 57-58.
16. Co v. Vargas, 676 Phil. 463, 470 (2011).
17. Reyes v. NLRC (5th Division), 556 Phil. 317, 326 (2007).
18. Lopez v. Bodega City (Video-Disco Kitchen of the Phils. and/or Torres-Yap, 558 Phil. 666, 673 (2007).
19. Rollo, p. 50.
20. Section 20. Compensation and Benefits. —
[A] (3) x x x For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. In the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the company-designated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed to by the seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.
21. Austria v. Crystal Shipping, Inc., G.R. No. 2016256, February 24, 2016, 785 SCRA 89, 97.
22. Nonay v. Bahia Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 206758, February 17, 2016, 784 SCRA 292, 311-312.
23. De Leon v. Maunlad Trans, Inc., G.R. No. 215293, February 8, 2017.
24. Rollo, pp. 32-34.
25. Id. at 55.
26. PNCC v. APAC Marketing Corp., 710 Phil. 389, 395 (2013).