FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241621. January 7, 2019.]
INTERORIENT MARITIME ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioner, vs. WILFREDO M. VALENCIA, JR., 1respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 7, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241621 — Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc., Petitioner, v. Wilfredo M. Valencia, Jr., Respondent.
The Court hereby resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period on September 13, 2018 within which to file its Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari of the June 21, 2018 Decision and August 17, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 153058, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for failure to show that the CA committed any reversible error in issuing the said assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The Court agrees with the uniform rulings of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), Office of the Secretary for the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), and the CA that petitioner violated Section 2 (r) 2 and (aa), 3 Rule II, Part V of the 2003 POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers (POEA Rules).
Deemed written in respondent's employment contract with petitioner was the 2000 POEA-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) 4 (the governing POEA-SEC at the time the petitioner employed respondent in August 2010). Section 20-B (3), paragraph 1, thereof imposes on the employer the obligation to provide the seafarer with sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until the seafarer is declared fit to work or the degree of his permanent disability is determined by the company-designated physician. The grant of sickness allowance is to afford a remedy to a seafarer during the period of his treatment as his inability to perform his sea duties would normally result in depriving him of compensation income. 5 acEHCD
The Court sustains petitioner's liability for withholding respondent's sickness allowance. Certainly, petitioner likewise violated the provisions of the POEA-SEC. The POEA, hence, aptly ruled on the liability of petitioner. As correctly ruled by the CA, the POEA has jurisdiction to hear and decide all disciplinary actions and other special cases administrative in character involving overseas Filipino workers. 6
Petitioner cannot escape liability on the strength of the Affidavit of Desistance executed by respondent. Suffice it to state that such act of desistance on the part of respondent will not bar the POEA from proceeding with the case against petitioner as provided under Section 11, 7 Rule IV, Part V of the 2003 POEA Rules.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed June 21, 2018 Decision and August 17, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 153058.
SO ORDERED."Bersamin, C.J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2632 dated December 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The name of respondent Wilfredo M. Valencia, Jr. appears as Wilfredo M. Valencia in some parts of the records.
2. r. Withholding of seafarers' salaries or remittances without justifiable reasons or shortchanging of remittances.
3. aa. Violation of other pertinent provisions of the Code and other relevant laws, rules and regulations, guidelines and other issuance on recruitment and deployment of seafarers for overseas employment and the protection of their welfare.
4. Issued pursuant to Department Order No. 4 of the Department of Labor and Employment and POEA Memorandum Circular No. 9, both series of 2000.
5.Javier v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 204101, July 2, 2014.
6.Eastern Mediterranean Maritime LTD. v. Surio, G.R. No. 154213, August 23, 2012.
7. Section 11. Effects of Withdrawal of Complaint/Desistance. — The withdrawal/desistance of the complaining witness shall not bar the Administration from proceeding with the investigation of the recruitment violation/s. The Administration shall resolve the case on the merits and impose the appropriate penalties.