THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213017. September 29, 2014.]
HEIRS OF JULIO R. CAMAMA, NAMELY BERNARDITA C. CAMAMA, SURVIVING WIFE, FOR HERSELF AND IN BEHALF OF THEIR DAUGHTER JULIE ANNE BERNADETTE C. CAMAMA, petitioners, vs. CREW AND SHIP MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC., ELOISA P. SANGALANG AND/OR GLITSA MARITIME COMPANY, LTD., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 29, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 213017 (Heirs of Julio R. Camama, namely Bernardita C. Camama, surviving wife, for herself and in behalf of their daughter Julie Anne Bernadette C. Camama vs. Crew and Ship Management International, Inc., Eloisa P. Sangalang and/or Glitsa Maritime Company, Ltd.). — Considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented, the Court finds that the present petition failed to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision dated March 18, 2014 and Resolution dated June 11, 2014 in CA-G.R. SP No. 130582, as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
The Labor Arbiter, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and the Court of Appeals unanimously found that petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Julio R. Camama (Camama), did not suffer from any disability, partial or total, temporary or permanent. They all found credibility in the finding of the company-designated physician that Camama is already fit to work, considering that he had been undergoing treatment and therapy for several months, and that during his last check-up, Camama had no more complaints regarding his fingers. 1 On the other hand, Camama insisted that he was suffering from permanent total disability, despite his own physician, Dr. Renato Runas, diagnosing him to be suffering only from Grade 10 disability.
We find no merit in the claim of petitioners that Camama was still suffering from a disability as a result of the accident, let alone a permanent total disability. We find that the findings of the tribunals below are amply supported by substantial evidence. It is an oft-repeated rule that the factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, particularly when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by this Court. 2 Finding that the arguments raised in the present petition are mere repetitions of those already argued and settled below, the Court rules that it fails to prove any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals. aDHCAE
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed March 18, 2014 Decision and June 11, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 130582 are hereby AFFIRMED. (Peralta, J., no part; Del Castillo, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated September 10, 2014)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 212-213.
2. New City Builders, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 149281, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA 220, 226.