THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225117. February 20, 2017.]
ROGELIO M. ENRICO, petitioner,vs. DELFI SHIPPING AGENCY, INC. and GREGORIO F. ORTEGA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 20, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225117 — ROGELIO M. ENRICO, Petitioner v. DELFI SHIPPING AGENCY, INC. and GREGORIO F. ORTEGA, Respondents. — The Court resolves to:
(1) GRANT petitioner's motion for an extension of fifteen (15) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period; and
(2) EXCLUDE the Court of Appeals as respondent from the title of this case pursuant to Section 4 (a), Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
The respondents deployed the petitioner as an oiler on board the vessel MT Perla on November 7, 2012, with a basic monthly salary of US$530. On June 5, 2013, an explosion occurred in the vessel causing a huge conflagration that caused burn injuries on the petitioner's left and right shoulder, left arm and hand, face and body. The petitioner was given first-aid treatment, and was rushed to Victoria Hospital upon the vessel reaching the Port of Seychelles on June 9, 2013. There, he was attended to by Dr. Mahaw Senaratu, who observed that he had suffered 12% burns over his body (revised trauma score), first to second degree burns on the right hand, and second to third degree burns on the left arm and hand. He was later on repatriated to the Philippines where he was referred to the company-designated physician to continue his treatment.
On February 12, 2014, or 234 days following the petitioner's medical repatriation, the company-designated physician issued a medical report giving him a disability Grade of 11, and declaring him "fit to resume sea duties." Inasmuch as the company-designated physician stopped his treatment, he sought medical consultation and treatment from Dr. May Donato-Tan of the Philippine Heart Center. On May 28, 2014, Dr. Tan issued a medical certificate declaring the petitioner permanently disabled.
On the basis of Dr. Tan's declaration, the petitioner applied for compensation based on total permanent disability, but the respondents refused to pay him, insisting that the company-designated physician had already declared him fit to resume sea duties. Hence, he filed his present claim.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner, and held the respondents liable for the payment of total permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter gave more weight to the assessment of the petitioner's doctor, and considered the assessment of the company-designated physician as understated. It ruled that the non-compliance with the procedure mandated under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and the CBA was negligible considering that said agreements must be construed and applied liberally in favor of the petitioner as a seaman.
On appeal by the respondents, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the decision of the Labor Arbiter by finding and declaring that the petitioner was entitled only to benefits representing a disability grading of Grade 11 as previously determined by the company-designated physician and to sickness allowance. It opined that the Labor Arbiter had not properly evaluated the medical opinions respectively presented by the parties; that although the petitioner had been under the care of three company-designated physicians (that is, a specialist, a general surgeon and a dermatologist) far longer than the single examination by the petitioner's physician, the latter had immediately concluded that the petitioner's "fear and apprehension" regarding the accident had precluded him from effectively performing his job; and that the petitioner's failure to comply with the provisions of the 2010 POEA-SEC on the appointment of a third physician should result in the upholding of the company-designated physician's findings.
The petitioner then assailed the NLRC's decision on certiorari.
Through the resolution promulgated on September 16, 2015, 1 the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition for certiorari for the petitioner's failure to file the petition within 60 days from the date he received the assailed resolution of the NLRC denying his motion for reconsideration. It appeared that his last day to file the petition was July 24, 2015, not July 29, 2015, as he had alleged. Hence, the petition filed via courier (LBC) and received by the CA on July 27, 2015 was filed three days late. The CA also stated that the petition did not include any explanation why its filing and its service had not been done personally, as required by Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
On May 12, 2016, the CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. 2
In this appeal, the petitioner submits that the CA incorrectly dismissed the petition for certiorari for being filed out of time; that the CA also erroneously found that the petitioner should not be granted total permanent disability benefits.
Ruling of the Court
The Court RESOLVES TO DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in promulgating the assailed resolutions on September 16, 2005 and May 12, 2016 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
We remind that a petition for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of the judgment, or notice of the order denying the motion for reconsideration. 3 With the expiration of the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari, a review of the resolution of the NLRC will be beyond the jurisdiction of any court. 4
It being indubitable that the filing of the petition for certiorari was late by three days, as found by the CA, the dismissal by the CA must be upheld in the absence of any credible explanation or reasonable justification for the tardiness. The relaxation of procedural rules fixing the periods for filing of initiatory pleadings will not be made without exceptional circumstances to call for it.
Moreover, we have reviewed the situation of the petitioner, and affirm the holding of the NLRC that his claim for total permanent disability benefits was unwarranted. We reiterate that the findings of the company-designated physician should prevail over those of the petitioner's physician in the absence of a resolution by a third physician duly elected and jointly agreed to by the employer and the seafarer. 5
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the resolutions promulgated on September 16, 2005 and May 12, 2016, without pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 42-43; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, and concurred in by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes.
2.Id. at pp. 44-45.
3. Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; see Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 191215, February 3, 2014, 715 SCRA 153, 163-164.
4.Waterfront Cebu City Casino Hotel, Inc. v. Ledesma, G.R. No. 197556, March 25, 2015, 754 SCRA 400, 412.
5.Formerly INC Shipmanagement, Incorporated (now INC Navigation Co. Philippines, Inc.) v. Rosales, G.R. No. 195832, October 1, 2014, 737 SCRA 438, 453.