SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252260. June 14, 2021.]
IMS PHILIPPINES MARITIME CORP., IINO MARINE SERV. CO. LTD. AND/OR CARMEN B. REBUSI, petitioners, vs.ERIC JAN OÑAS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 June 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252260 (IMS Philippines Maritime Corp., IINO Marine SERV. Co. Ltd. and/or Carmen B. Rebusi v. Eric Jan Oñas). — The Court resolves to:
1. DENY Eric Jan Oñas' (respondent) motion for extension of twenty (20) days from January 29, 2021 within which to file comment on the petition for review on certiorari; and
2. DISPENSE with the aforesaid comment.
The Case
This petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 assails the Decision 2 dated September 12, 2019 and the Resolution 3 dated March 10, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 158922 affirming the grant of US$60,000.00 disability benefits and ten percent (10%) attorney's fees to respondent.
Antecedents
On May 29, 2014, petitioner IMS Philippines Maritime Corp. (IMS) hired respondent as messman for its principal IINO Marine Services Co. Ltd. Governed by the Japan Seamen's Union (JSU) Associated Marine Officer's and Seaman's Union of the Philippines-Collective Bargaining Agreement (AMOSUP-CBA), the nine (9)-month employment contract assured respondent of a basic salary of US$441.00 per month. 4
After going through the required pre-employment medical check-up, he was certified fit to work. On May 31, 2014, he boarded MT Chemroute Oasis.
In August 2014, he noticed that his stomach was bloating, and for at least five (5) times a day, he experienced loose bowel movement with epigastric pain. He was given oral medicals for these symptoms.
On December 31, 2014, while he was carrying heavy provisions, he suddenly felt back pain and abdominal discomfort which persisted for days. 5
On January 3, 2015, he was taken to a hospital in Cartagena, Spain for evaluation. His lumbosacral x-ray revealed the presence of gas/colic stool frame and a slight deviation of his lumbar spine. Due to recurring pain despite medication, he was eventually declared unfit for sea duty. 6
On January 9, 2015, he got repatriated to the Philippines. When he reported to IMS on January 12, 2015, he was immediately referred to the NGC Medical Specialist Clinic, Inc. There, he was initially diagnosed with "T/C Cholelithiasis" and advised to undergo abdominal ultrasound, CBC, and urinalysis. 7
When he returned for check-up, he still complained of abdominal pain, soft watery stools, and loss of appetite. Although his laboratory results were normal, the company-designated doctor diagnosed him with "Inflammatory Bowel Disease" and referred him to a gastro-intestinal specialist for colonoscopy. He was also given medication after a series of check-ups. 8
On March 19, 2015, he underwent colonoscopy and was found to have developed "Colonic Polyps." On the same day, these polyps were surgically removed. 9
On April 10, 2015, he returned for check-up and still complained of intermittent epigastric pain with associated loose stools. He was given medication and advised to return on April 20, 2015. 10
On the appointed day for check-up, he again complained of occasional abdominal pain. He stated though that his regular bowel movement and good appetite already got restored. He was then advised to continue his medication and to return on May 4, 2015. 11
When he did not return for his regular check-up, the company-designated doctor reported the status of his treatment to his employer and his absence on the appointed day. 12
On May 26, 2015, he appeared for a follow-up check-up but still complained of occasional epigastric pain. The doctor noted that he had neither vomiting nor a change in his bowel movement. He was advised to continue his medication and return on June 9, 2015. 13
On June 9, 2015, he reported that he no longer had epigastric pain and he had maintained his regular bowel movement. After a complete round of physical examination, the company-designated doctor declared him fit to work and resume his sea duties. 14
Over one (1) year later, he consulted Dr. Ma. Lourdes Daez (Dr. Daez), a specialist in Gastroenterology-Internal Medicine. On August 8, 2016, he underwent endoscopy at the Philippine General Hospital. 15
In his Medical Report dated August 11, 2016, Dr. Daez diagnosed respondent with Reflux Esophagitis Erythematous Gastropathy and Duodenopathy (GERD) and declared the latter unfit to work, thus:
This is to certify that Eric Jan Oñas has been diagnosed to have GERD — Reflux Esophagitis Erythematous Gastropathy and Duodenopathy. He is presently on medication and is currently still symptomatic. He is under observation and unfit to work at this time. Further work-up may need to be done depending on his response to medication. 16
On August 15, 2016, respondent further consulted Dr. May S. Donato-Tan (Dr. Donato-Tan), a specialist in Internal Medicine-Cardiology at the Philippine Heart Center. In her Medical Certificate 17 of even date, Dr. Donato-Tan found respondent to be permanently disabled, viz.:
Reason for His Permanent Disability:
Seaman Oñas is very apprehensive and worried with the presence of an on & off abdominal pain coupled with loose bowel stools which requires the daily use of adult diapers & 2 capsules of Imodium daily to prevent diarrhea and embarrassment despite his drug intake.
Due to the above situation, Seaman Oñas will not be able to perform his job as a seaman effectively, efficiently and productively. He is therefore given a permanent disability. 18
On August 18, 2016, respondent asked IMS for referral to a third doctor and for copies of his prior medical assessment and records. 19
On August 24, 2016, IMS acknowledged respondent's request for referral to a third doctor. Too, it requested for copies of the medical assessments issued by respondent's personal doctor. 20 But the request went unheeded. 21
On October 5, 2016, AMOSUP issued a Notice of Conference pertaining to respondent's claim for total and permanent disability benefits. On the scheduled date, October 14, 2016, respondent did not attend the conference, albeit his counsel moved for the immediate termination of the grievance proceeding. On October 26, 2016, the grievance proceeding was officially declared terminated. 22
Thereafter, on November 8, 2016, respondent filed a Notice to Arbitrate with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). 23
IMS disputed respondent's claim. It asserted that the company-designated physician already declared him fit-to-work after he got treated for his colonic polyps, the reason why he got repatriated in the first place. GERD was a totally new condition which he acquired more than one (1) year after he was medically declared fit to work and resume his sea duties. There was no showing at all that GERD was associated with his previous illness, much less, work-related. Too, the dispute mechanism under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) does not come into play because from the time the company-designated physician issued a fit to work, it took respondent more than a year before he consulted his doctors of choice who then certified that he was no longer fit to resume his sea duties.
Ruling of the Voluntary Arbitrator
By Decision 24 dated March 28, 2018, Voluntary Arbitrator Reynaldo R. Ubaldo dismissed the complaint but awarded US$12,000.00 for humanitarian considerations. He ruled that respondent's illness was acquired on board but it was not work-related. It did not give credence to the medical certificate issued by Dr. Daez who appeared to have examined respondent only once, aside from the fact that the medical certificate she issued did not even bear her findings on respondent's supposed illness. As for Dr. Donato-Tan, she, too, failed to explain why she considered respondent's illness to be work-related.
On both parties' motions for reconsideration, the voluntary arbitrator issued his Resolution 25 dated November 29, 2018, granting respondent's claim for total and permanent disability, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered granting complainant's Motion for Reconsideration dated 28 May 2018 and denying the respondent's Motion for Reconsideration dated 30 May 2018 for lack of merit.
Further, the Respondents IMS Philippine Maritime Corp., IINO Marine Services Co. Ltd. and/or Carmen B. Rebusi [are] directed to pay complainant, Eric Jan·C. Oñas, the amount of Sixty Thousand US Dollars (US$60,000.00) as his total and permanent disability benefits and ten percent (10%) thereof by way of attorney's fees in its [peso] equivalent at the time of actual payment.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 26
The voluntary arbitrator found that respondent's illness was not completely resolved despite the fit-to-work assessment issued by the company-designated physician. He gave credence to the subsequent assessments issued by the independent specialists that respondent was no longer fit to resume sea duties.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
By Decision 27 dated September 12, 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It ruled that the company-designated doctor's fit-to-work assessment was not conclusive because (1) she was not a specialist in the field of Internal Medicine, and (2) no further tests were conducted before the doctor finally declared that respondent was already fit to resume his sea duties. The assessments made by respondent's chosen physicians were more credible as they are experts in the field of Internal Medicine.
By Resolution 28 dated March 10, 2020, the motion for reconsideration of IMS was also denied.
The Present Petition
IMS now seeks relief from the Court against the assailed dispositions of the Court of Appeals. Essentially, it faults the Court of Appeals for giving credence to the findings of respondent's private doctors that he was no longer fit to work and he is entitled to permanent and total disability because 1) the new illness was totally unrelated to the illness previously treated by the company-designated physician; 2) there was a lapse of more than one (1) year between the time he was declared fit to work and the time he consulted his private doctors; and 3) the assessments of the private doctors were only based on a one time examination.
Respondent failed to file his comment despite the Court's directive under Resolution 29 dated September 14, 2020.
Issue
May IMS be held liable for respondent's claim for permanent and total disability benefits based on a different illness he was complaining of fourteen (14) months after he was certified fit to work and resume sea duties?
Ruling
As a rule, the Court, not being a trier of facts, will not recalibrate or weigh anew the evidence on record, let alone, disturb the factual findings of the labor tribunals, especially when they carry the full concurrence of the Court of Appeals, as in this case. 30 One of the exceptions, however, is when there is a misappreciation of the evidence or misapprehension of facts, 31 which if unrectified, will cause grave injustice to the aggrieved party, as in this case. Verily, therefore, the Court is constrained here and now to review the factual findings of the voluntary arbitrator and the Court of Appeals in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
As stated, on January 3, 2015, in Cartagena, Spain, respondent got subjected to a lumbosacral x-ray which revealed the presence of gas/colic stool frame and a slight deviation of his lumbar spine. Due to recurring pain despite medication, he was eventually declared unfit for sea duty and repatriated on January 9, 2015. 32 When he reported to IMS on January 12, 2015, he was immediately referred to the NGC Medical Specialist Clinic, Inc. where he got examined by the company-designated doctor. He was initially diagnosed with "T/C Cholelithiasis" and advised to undergo abdominal ultrasound, CBC, and urinalysis. 33 During his next visit, he still complained of abdominal pain, soft watery stools, and loss of appetite. Although his laboratory results were normal, the company-designated doctor diagnosed him with "Inflammatory Bowel Disease" and referred him to a gastro-intestinal specialist for colonoscopy. He was also given medication after a series of check-ups. 34
On March 19, 2015, he underwent colonoscopy, followed by a surgical removal of polyps in his colon. 35 On April 10, 2015, he again went for check-up, albeit he still complained of intermittent epigastric pain with associated loose stools. He was given medication and advised to return on April 20, 2015. 36 On even date, he got examined anew. Although he still complained of occasional abdominal pain, he had regular bowel movement and a good appetite. He was advised to continue his medication and to return on May 4, 2015. 37 But he only showed up on May 26, 2015, during which, he still complained of occasional epigastric pain. The doctor noted though that he had neither vomiting nor a change in his bowel movement. He was advised to continue his medication and return on June 9, 2015. 38 On that day, he informed the doctor that he no longer had epigastric pain and he had had regular bowel movement. The company-designated doctor did a complete round of physical examination, and on the basis of the results thereof, declared him fit to work and resume his sea duties. 39
In Magadia v. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc., 40 we stated that the company-designated physician should give an assessment within the period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported for treatment. If the period is exceeded without any justifiable reason, the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total. However, the period of 120 days treatment shall be extended to 240 days when the company-designated physician sufficiently justified the extension, i.e., the seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative.
Here, while petitioner's illness had not been resolved within the first 120 days window, his extended treatment beyond 120 days but not more than 240 days was therefore justified. His illness required further medical treatment as he still complained of epigastric pain.
Notably, on June 9, 2015, or on the 148th day, respondent's illness already got resolved, for which, the company-designated doctor issued him a certificate of fit to work.
Fourteen (14) months later, respondent challenged the final assessment and certificate of fit to work issued by the company-designated doctor. But this belated challenge must fail. Maunlad Transport, Inc. v. Manigo, Jr.41 is apropos, thus:
There have been several other cases where the Court also rejected the medical report issued by the physician appointed by a claimant. In Cadornigara v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court held that an assessment of a private doctor consulted by the claimant six months after he was declared fit to work by the company-designated physician has no evidentiary value, for the claimant's health condition may have drastically changed in the interregnum. The Court's ruling in Sarocam, which petitioners cited, was of the same tenor. The Court rejected the medical report procured by the claimant from a private doctor, 11 months after he was declared fit to work by the company-designated physician. (Emphasis supplied)
So must it be.
But even assuming that respondent's claim had been timely filed, the same must still fail. Consider:
First. His claim was for an entirely different illness called GERD which he never had nor complained of during his employment or even during his five-month treatment sessions with the company-designated doctor and the gastroenterologist. In Falcon Maritime and Allied Services, Inc. v. Pangasian, 42 we denied the claim for disability benefits on an illness which the seafarer did not bring to the attention of the company-designated doctor while he was being treated for a different illness, thus:
Unfortunately, in this case, the company-designated physician had no opportunity to assess the back pains of the respondent since, to emphasize, he made no mention of such back pains to the company-designated physician during his post-employment medical examination. To hold the petitioners liable for disability benefits when they were robbed of the opportunity to determine the work relation of the injury now being complained of by the respondent, a right guaranteed by the POEA-SEC, would be the height of injustice.
It is true that the POEA-SEC is designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seafarers in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels and its provisions should be construed and applied fairly, reasonably, and liberally in favor or for the benefit of the seafarer and his dependents. However, one who claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should not only comply with the procedural requirements of law, but must also establish his right to the benefits by substantial evidence. The burden, therefore, rests on the respondent to show that he suffered or contracted his injury while still employed as a seafarer, which resulted in his permanent disability.
Regrettably, respondent failed to discharge this burden. Aside from his bare allegation that he experienced back pains during the term of his employment contract, he presented no other evidence to substantiate his claim. To reiterate, when he underwent post-employment medical examination, he did not call the attention of the company-designated physician to his back pains. In fact, when he was asked if he was experiencing numbness or weakness in his body or difficulty with ambulation, he answered in the negative. On record, he informed the petitioners about his lumbar problem only on August 29, 2012, or three months after he was repatriated. Thus, the reasonable conclusion is that at the time of his repatriation, respondent was not suffering from any back pains requiring any medical assistance. That he was found to be suffering from degenerative disc disease, L3-L4andL4-L5 and broadbased disc bulge with annular tear at L4-L5 when he underwent medical tests and was examined by his doctors after August 29, 2012 is of no moment. It is well noted that many other incidents could have occurred in the duration of three months from the time he was repatriated until he consulted a private physician which could have triggered the pain in his lower back and that such illness or injury could not have been work-related at the time he was still employed by petitioners. (Emphases supplied)
Second. Records show that the only test done by his private doctors on respondent was an endoscopy. Also, he was examined only once by Dr. Daez. On the other hand, Dr. Donato-Tan did not do any test on him and had clinically observed him just once, as well.
In contrast, respondent's treatment with the company-designated doctor entailed thirteen sessions and each time, the latter issued a detailed medical report, bearing respondent's complaints, health condition, and noted improvements. 43 These treatment sessions went on over a span of five months and stopped only starting his last session on June 9, 2015 when he informed the doctor that he no longer had epigastric pain and he had regular bowel movement already. 44 Even then, the company-designated doctor still did a complete round of physical examination on him just to make sure his condition had been completely resolved. Based on the results of this round of physical examination, the company-doctor issued his final assessment that respondent is fit to work and resume his sea duties. 45
In Ison v. Crewserve, Inc., 46 we ruled that a one-time examination does not suffice to overturn the thorough medical findings of the company-designated doctor that went on for several months:
The company-designated physician has cleared petitioner for employment resumption after two months of continuous treatment and after medication has successfully controlled his hypertension. As aptly held by the CA, the extensive medical attention given by the company-designated physician to petitioner enabled the former to acquire a detailed knowledge and familiarity of petitioner's medical condition. This enabled the company-designated physician to arrive at a more accurate prognosis of petitioner's disability as compared to other physicians not privy to petitioner's case from the beginning. It has been held that the doctor who have had a personal knowledge of the actual medical condition, having closely, meticulously and regularly monitored and actually treated the seaman's illness, is more qualified to assess the seaman's disability.
On the other hand, the medical reports of Dr. Vicaldo and Dr. Caja were issued after petitioner consulted each of them only once. Clearly, said physicians did not have the chance to closely monitor petitioner's illness. Moreover, Dr. Vicaldo's evaluation of petitioner's illness was unsupported by any proof or basis. While he diagnosed petitioner to be suffering from "Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease, Concentric Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, Lateral Wall Ischemic" and suggested an "Impediment Grade V (58-96%)," no justification for such assessment was provided for in the medical certificate he issued. Similarly, Dr. Caja's medical report contained no supporting proof but was rather based on the findings of past examinations done by the company-designated physician, as well as on the statements supplied to her by the petitioner. In Coastal Safety Marine Services, Inc. v. Esguerra, this Court brushed aside the medical certifications upon which the seaman therein anchored his claim for disability benefits for being unsupported by diagnostic tests and procedures as would effectively dispute the results of the medical examination earlier made upon him in a foreign clinic referred by his employer. (Emphasis supplied)
Similarly, in Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. San Juan, 47 we ordained, thus:
At any rate, the certification issued by San Juan's physician cannot prevail over the conclusions of PTCI's company-designated physicians. The company-designated physicians were in a better position to assess the illness or disability of San Juan considering that their findings were based on a number of tests, i.e., stress test and Cranial MRI, and medical evaluation done on San Juan. Contrarily, it is undisputed that the recommendation of San Juan's physician was based on a single medical report who examined San Juan only once, which, we note, was issued several months after his fit-to-work certifications were issued by PTCI's company-designated physicians. Thus, as between the findings of the company-designated physicians, and the physician designated by San Juan, the former deserves to be given greater evidentiary weight. In any event, the certification issued by San Juan's own physician could not serve as basis for his claim for permanent and total disability benefits because it merely stated that he is unfit to resume sea duties; it did not state the disability grading as required by the POEA-SEC. (Emphasis supplied)
Third. The medical report of Dr. Daez that respondent "has been diagnosed to have GERD — Reflux Esophagitis Erythematous Gastropathy and Duodenopathy. He is presently on medication and is currently still symptomatic. He is under observation and unfit to work at this time. Further work-up may need to be done depending on his response to medication" 48 is at best incomplete and inconclusive. In her own words, Dr. Daez indicated that she had no final diagnosis as yet, and it was only on that particular occasion that he was unfit to work, again to borrow her own words "at this time he is unfit to work." She never spoke of any total and permanent disability, much less, of respondent's GERD being work related or a mere complication or a recurrence of his T/C Cholelithiasis, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Epigastric Pain, or Colonic Polyps, which in fact had already been resolved more than a year ago per certification of the company-designated doctor.
Fourth. As for the Medical Certificate dated August 15, 2016 issued by Dr. Donato-Tan, it bears the statement that she "finds respondent to be permanently disabled as he is very apprehensive and worried with the presence of an on & off abdominal pain coupled with loose bowel stools which requires the daily use of adult diapers & 2 capsules of Imodium daily to prevent diarrhea and embarrassment despite his drug intake." As worded, the Certification was not based on any veritable data obtained from the results of any laboratory test or medical procedure done on respondent or even from the doctor's plain observation of him. Dr. Donato-Tan simply repeated respondent's narrative to her about his so-called apprehensions, worries, and embarrassment due to his supposed on and off diarrhea which requires him to use adult diapers. Using this narrative alone, Dr. Donato-Tan peremptorily concluded "she finds him to be permanently disabled." In sum, the aforesaid Certification is at best unreliable and devoid of any probative value. In any event, like Dr. Daez, Dr. Donato-Tan did not make any finding that the supposed on and off diarrhea of respondent was work connected or a recurrence of his condition during his employment or soon after his repatriation.
Fifth. Going now to respondent's request for referral to a third doctor, notably, he himself initially asked for it, but did not pursue it anymore after IMS requested to be furnished medical records bearing the findings of his own doctors. Instead, he prematurely went straight to the voluntary arbitrator to assert his claim for permanent and total benefits. The referral of the conflicting medical findings to an independent third doctor is important and crucial to the claim of the seafarer. 49 As shown here, respondent himself abandoned the referral to a third doctor, sans any valid reason. Consequently, the fit-to-work assessment issued by the company-designated physician is considered final and binding on respondent.
Finally, the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that the fit to work assessment of the company-designated physician was unreliable because she was not a specialist in the field of Internal Medicine; she did not conduct any further tests on respondent before making her final assessment as she supposedly depended alone on respondent's declaration that he no longer experienced epigastric pain and his bowel movement was regular. On this score, Agustin, Jr. v. MMS Phil. Maritime Services, Inc.50 teaches, thus:
Contrary to the submission of petitioner, the credibility of the Final Medical Report of Dr. Cruz is not compromised either by the fact that no EGD or biopsy was done immediately prior to its issuance or by the fact that Dr. Cruz specializes merely on surgery. We substantiate:
1. The certification in the Final Medical Report that petitioner is "FIT TO RESUME SEA DUTIES . . ." is justified even though there had been no EGD or biopsy that was conducted showing that petitioner is completely free of any illnesses. A finding of fitness to resume sea duties does not warrant the seafarer's absolute and complete freedom from of any illness or disease but only such condition as would allow him to perform all acts necessary to resume his profession "without any serious discomfort or pain and without material injury or danger to life." Here, the records are clear that the Dr. Cruz's assessment of the condition of petitioner had been the result of almost five (5) months of close, regular and continuous monitoring and treatment of petitioner. To our mind, this is enough basis upon which to conclude the fitness of petitioner.
2. The fact that Dr. Cruz is a surgeon, as opposed to being an internist, is also not a sufficient reason to disregard his Final Medical Report. To begin with, the POEA-SEC does not require that the fitness or disability of a seafarer be assessed by a specialist physician. As taught by Sarocam v. Interorient Maritime, Ent., Inc.:
The only requirement stated in the POEA Standard Employment Contract, as explained in the German Marine case, is that the doctor be company-designated, and no other. Though it is prudent and advisable to have a doctor specialized in his field to examine the seafarer's condition or degree of illness, the contractual provisions of the parties only require that the doctor be "company-designated." When the language of the contract is explicit, as in the case at bar, leaving no doubt as to the intention of the drafters thereof, the courts may not read into it any other intention that would contradict its plain import. (Emphases supplied)
Here, the company-designated physician did not treat respondent alone. She had a gastroenterologist as a co-attending physician who performed colonoscopy on respondent and provided medical treatment for his polyps. 51 Surely, after conducting a series of check-ups and physical examinations on respondent over a span of 148 days, coupled with test results and expert opinions of her assisting gastroenterologist, the company-designated doctor, indeed, had sufficient basis to declare respondent fit to work and resume his sea duties.
But this is not to say that the assessment of the company-designated physician is at once final, binding, and conclusive. To stress, the seafarer has the right to seek a second opinion. He may dispute the medical report issued by the company-designated physician by seasonably consulting another physician. The medical report issued by the physician of his choice will also be evaluated by the labor tribunal and the court based on its inherent merits. 52 As it was though, not only did the second medical opinions here come too late in the day, they too are unreliable, inconclusive, and incomplete; aside from the fact that they spoke of another kind of illness "GERD" and did not declare that it was work related, much less, constitute a total and permanent disability.
We emphasize anew that the constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to oppress employers. The commitment of the Court to the cause of labor does not prevent us from sustaining the employer when it is in the right. 53
In any event, although a seafarer is not entitled to any disability benefits, the Court has, in several instances, awarded financial assistance due to humanitarian considerations through the principle of social and compassionate justice for the working class. The amount is essentially subject to the sound discretion of the courts. 54 We therefore award financial assistance to respondent in the amount of US$12,000.00 which is deemed equitable under the circumstances.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 12, 2019 and Resolution dated March 10, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 158922 are REVERSED and SETASIDE. Eric Jan C. Oñas is ORDERED to RETURN to IMS Philippines Maritime Corp. the amount of US$66,000.00 less US$12,000.00.
SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-28.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and concurred in by Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, id. at 37-50.
3.Id. at 52-53.
4.Id. at 96.
5.Id. at 38.
6.Id. at 97-99.
7.Id. at 100.
8.Id. at 101-106.
9.Id. at 107.
10.Id. at 108.
11.Id. at 109.
12.Id. at 110.
13.Id. at 111.
14.Id. at 112.
15Id. at 166.
16.Id. at 167.
17.Id. at 168-169.
18.Id. at 169.
19.Id. at 113.
20.Id. at 114-115.
21.Id. at 8.
22.Id.
23.Id. at 117.
24.Id. at 40-41.
25.Id. at 42.
26.Id. at 44.
27.Id. at 37-50.
28.Id. at 52-53.
29.Id. at 284.
30. See Gimalay v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 240123 & 240125, June 17, 2020.
31. See Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc. v. Utanes, G.R. No. 236498, September 16, 2020.
32.Rollo, pp. 97-99.
33.Id. at 100.
34.Id. at 101-106.
35.Id. at 107.
36.Id. at 108.
37.Id. at 109.
38.Id. at 111.
39.Id. at 112.
40. See G.R. No. 246497, December 5, 2019.
41. 577 Phil. 319, 329 (2008), citations omitted.
42. See G.R. No. 223295, March 13, 2019.
43.Rollo, pp. 100-112.
44.Id. at 112.
45.Id.
46. 685 Phil. 704, 718-719 (2012).
47. See G.R. No. 207511, October 5, 2020.
48.Rollo, p. 167.
49. See De Vera v. United Philippine Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 223246, June 26, 2019.
50. See G.R. No. 235754, February 7, 2018, (notice) other citations omitted.
51. See Medical Report dated January 13, 2015, rollo, p. 101, and Medical Report dated March 19, 2015, rollo, p. 107.
52. See Maunlad Transport, Inc. v. Manigo, Jr., supra note 41, at 330.
53. See Sarocam v. Interorient Maritime Ent., Inc., 526 Phil. 448, 459 (2006).
54. See Heirs of Pajares v. North Sea Marine Services Corp., G.R. No. 244437, September 14, 2020.