FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243380. April 1, 2019.]
INTERMODAL SHIPPING, INC. AND/OR EXPEDO SHIPPING [TAIPEI] CORPORATION AND/OR VICENTE BRILLIANTES, petitioners, vs.FELIPE G. ESCALONA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 1, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243380 — Intermodal Shipping, Inc. and/or Expedo Shipping [Taipei] Corporation and/or Vicente Brilliantes, petitioners, vs. Felipe G. Escalona, respondent.
The Motion for Extension of Time filed by petitioners seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on December 25, 2018 within which to file their Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure to show that the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 145581 committed any reversible error.
We find no compelling reason to disturb the uniform findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals, the National Labor Relations Commission, and the Labor Arbiter.
Additionally, the 120-240 days period to issue a certification of fitness or disability rating still jurisprudentially stands. In Magsaysay Mitsui Osk Marine, Inc., et al. v. Buenaventura, 1 the Court expressly elucidated the rules anent a seafarer's total and permanent disability claims, viz.:
In summary, if there is a claim for total and permanent disability benefits by a seafarer, the following rules (rules) shall govern:
1. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;
2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total;
3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g., seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and CAIHTE
4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.
The Court is not unmindful of the declaration in INC Shipmanagement that "[t]he extent of his disability (whether total or partial) is determined, not by the number of days that he could not work, but by the disability grading the doctor recognizes based on his resulting incapacity to work and earn his wages." Indeed, the disability benefits granted to the seafarer are not entirely dependent on the number of treatment lapsed days. The treatment period can be extended to 240 days if the company-designated physician provided some sufficient justification. Equally eminent, however, is the Court's pronouncement in the more recent case of Carcedo that "[t]he determination of the fitness of a seafarer for sea duty is the province of the company-designated physician, subject to the periods prescribed by law." (emphases and italics in the original)
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby resolves to AFFIRM the assailed January 22, 2018 Decision and November 27, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 145581.
SO ORDERED."(Jardeleza, J., on official leave).
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. G.R. No. 195878, January 10, 2018.