FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227957. November 20, 2017.]
MAERSK-FILIPINAS CREWING, INC. AND MORENA F. JARA, petitioners, vs.ANECITO O. ADA, JR. AND THE NATIONAL CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION BOARD PANEL OF VOLUNTARY ARBITRATORS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 20, 2017, which reads as follows: acEHCD
"G.R. No. 227957 (Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. and Morena F. Jara v. Anecito O. Ada, Jr. and the National Conciliation and Mediation Board Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators). — This is a Motion for Extension filed by petitioners Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. and Morena F. Jara. They are seeking an additional 30 days, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari. Their motion is GRANTED.
After a careful review of the case, the Court resolves to AFFIRM in toto the Decision 1 and the Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 143346, which affirmed the Decision 3 and the Resolution 4 of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA).
Factual findings of the CA are conclusive on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court. These findings carry even more weight when the CA affirms those of a lower fact-finding body, in this case the PVA. They are binding upon this Court, unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion, or where it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in utter disregard of the evidence on record. 5
This Court finds no reason to depart from the PVA's factual findings, which were affirmed by the CA. It has been held that when injuries or disabilities incapacitate a seafarer from performing his usual sea duties for a period of more than 120 or 240 days — depending on the need for further medical treatment — then he is, under legal contemplation, totally and permanently disabled. 6
In this case, although the company-designated physician declared respondent Anecito O. Ada, Jr. (Ada) with a Grade 8 disability within the 240-day period, the latter continued to suffer pain in his back, which hindered his movements beyond the 240-day period. A review of the case shows that even after 321 days from repatriation, Ada was still declared to be unfit to return to work. Thus, the PVA classified his disability as total and permanent, entitling him to disability benefits corresponding to a Grade 1 disability.
Disability should not be understood mainly on the basis of its medical significance, but of the loss of earning capacity. Permanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work that the employee was trained for or was accustomed to perform. It does not mean absolute helplessness. 7
As reflected by the records, Ada's scope of responsibility included loading, discharging and taking care of the cargo during voyage. The company-designated physician even assessed Ada to have lost two-thirds of the lifting power of the latter's trunk. In his condition, Ada could not be made to lift, pull and carry load, or reach above his shoulders and manipulate mechanical objects. He could no longer qualify for the same kind of work he was trained for or was accustomed to perform.
We therefore see no error on the part of the CA when it affirmed the factual findings of the PVA.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-35; dated 29 July 2016; penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Melchor Q.C. Sadang concurring.
2.Id. at 37-38; dated 26 October 2016.
3.Id. at 182-192; dated 7 September 2015; deliberated upon by the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators Chairperson Romeo A. Young and Panel Members Gregorio C. Biares, Jr. and Leonardo B. Saulog.
4.Id. at 193-194; dated 6 November 2015.
5.Colegio De San Juan De Letran-Calamba v. Tardeo, 738 Phil. 693 (2014).
6.Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, 702 Phil. 717 (2013).
7.Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission, 521 Phil. 330 (2006).