FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219105. August 26, 2015.]
MAERSK FILIPINAS CREWING, INC. AND/OR A.P. MOLLER A/S, petitioners, vs. SOLANO D. VERZOSA, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 26, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 219105(Maersk Filipinas Crewing, Inc. and/or A.P. Moller A/S v. Solano D. Verzosa, Jr.).
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the December 12, 2014 Decision 1 and June 17, 2015 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 135549 for failure of petitioners Maersk Filipinas Crewing, Inc. and/or A.P. Moller A/S to show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the grant of permanent and total disability benefits in favor of respondent Solano D. Verzosa, Jr. (respondent).
As correctly ruled by the CA, when the company-designated physician's fit to work declaration was made, respondent was still suffering from arrhythmia, which, according to the cardiologist recommended by the company-designated physician himself, would take six (6) weeks to six (6) months to heal. In this light, such declaration cannot be given any credence, and must be disregarded, thus, entitling him to total and permanent disability benefits. 3 It bears to stress that findings of fact of the labor tribunals, as affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court, 4 and are not to be disturbed unless they fall under the recognized exceptions, 5 which do not obtain in this case.
SO ORDERED." DETACa
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 52-61. Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan concurring.
2. Id. at 63-64.
3. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Pelagio, G.R. No. 211302, August 12, 2015.
4. Acevedo v. Advanstar Company, Inc., 511 Phil. 279, 287 (2005).
5. Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., 665 Phil. 784, 789 (2011).