FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247536. September 11, 2019.]
FLORANTE P. GUEVARA, * petitioner, vs.ABOSTA SHIPMANAGEMENT CORPORATION/PANSTAR SHIPPING, CO., LTD./ALEX S. ESTABILLO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 11, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247536 (Florante P. Guevara v. Abosta Shipmanagement Corporation/Panstar Shipping, Co., Ltd./Alex S. Estabillo)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the January 30, 2019 Decision 2 and the May 23, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 157631 for failure of petitioner Florante P. Guevara (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in ruling that he is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner's belated objection to the final fit-to-work assessment 4 of the company-designated physician (CDP), made two (2) years and four (4) months therefrom, as well as his failure to present evidence of his employment activities during such time, raised the possibility that his condition was caused by other factors during the intervening period, and thus, militates against his claim that his injury is work-related. 5 It is settled that while a seafarer has the right to seek a second, even a third, opinion on his medical condition, the same must be seasonably secured 6 and done in accordance with the procedure under the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, 7 failing at which, renders the CDP's assessment final and binding on petitioner. 8 Moreover, the CA correctly held that there was justifiable reason 9 to extend the one hundred twenty (120)-day treatment period, within which a final disability assessment should have been issued, to two hundred forty (240) days in view of the surgical operation 10 performed on petitioner on the 108th day of his treatment and his complaints of occasional pain 11 on the 119th day of treatment; 12 hence, the declaration by the CDP that petitioner was fit to resume sea duties on the 169th day of his treatment was timely made. 13 It bears stressing that factual findings of the labor tribunals or agencies, when affirmed by the CA, are accorded respect and finality, and are therefore binding upon this Court, 14 as in this case.
Furthermore, the Court resolves to await petitioner's full compliance with the July 8, 2019 Resolution by submitting a soft copy of the first motion to file petition, with a verified declaration, proof of updated payment of petitioner's counsel Integrated Bar of the Philippines membership dues, and his contact details.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* "Florante F. Guevara" in some parts of the rollo.
1.Rollo, pp. 34-93.
2.Id. at 8-23. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, concurring.
3.Id. at 25-26.
4. See Medical Report dated October 1, 2014; id. at 229.
5. See id. at 18-19.
6. See Cagatin v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, 761 Phil. 64, 82 (2015).
7. POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2010, entitled "AMENDED STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO SEAFARERS ON-BOARD OCEAN-GOING SHIPS," dated October 26, 2010.
8. See Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. v. Dumagdag, 712 Phil. 507, 521 (2013).
9. "[F]or the company-designated physician to avail of the extended 240-day period, he must first perform some significant act to justify an extension (e.g., that the illness still requires medical attendance beyond the initial 120 days but not to exceed 240 days); otherwise, the seafarer's disability shall be conclusively presumed to be permanent and total. (See Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Rapiz, 803 Phil. 266, 273 [2017].)
10. See Medical Report dated August 1, 2014; rollo, p. 224.
11. See Medical Report dated August 12, 2014; id. at 226.
12. See id. at 20.
13. See id. See also Medical Report dated October 1, 2014; id. at 229.
14.Centennial Transmarine, Inc. v. Quiambao, 763 Phil. 411, 424 (2016), citing Superior Packaging Corporation v. Balagsay, 697 Phil. 62, 68-69 (2012).