SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257029. March 2, 2022.]
MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION AND/OR PRINCESS CRUISES LINES, LTD., A BERMUDA COMPANY, petitioners, vs.EDMEL C. CORNELIA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated02 March 2022which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 257029 (Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and/or Princess Cruises Lines, Ltd., a Bermuda Company v. Edmel C. Cornelia). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition for review on certiorari1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated December 04, 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated June 16, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 161880, for failure of petitioners Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and/or Princess Cruises Lines, Ltd., a Bermuda Company (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding that respondent Edmel C. Cornelia (respondent) was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, attorney's fees, and legal interest.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent's illness should be deemed work-related and compensable in view of the unrebutted presumption of work-relation under Section 20 (A) (4) 4 of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract and the sufficient showing of a causal connection between respondent's illness, on the one hand, and his work for petitioners, on the other. In this regard, it is well to note that by law, the burden is on petitioners, as the employer, to prove that respondent's illness was not work-related. 5 As the former failed to do so in this case, the presumption of work-relation must stand. Apart from this, petitioners also failed to give a full, complete, and definite medical assessment of respondent's illness within the period provided by law and likewise failed to observe the mandatory requirement of referring respondent's case to a third doctor. 6 Hence, by operation of law, respondent's illness must be deemed total and permanent. 7 It bears stressing that the factual findings of labor tribunals, when affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded respect and finality by this Court, 8 save for certain exceptions which do not obtain in this case.
In view of the denial of the petition, the Court NOTES WITHOUT ACTION: (1) petitioners' Compliance 9 dated October 15, 2021 with the Resolution 10 dated September 13, 2021, submitting a proper verification of the petition with additional attestations required under Section 4, Rule 7 of the 2019 Amended Rules of Court; and (2) respondent's motion 11 for extension of fifteen (15) days from October 15, 2021, within which to file comment on the petition.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Dated July 21, 2021; rollo, pp. 3-35.
2.Id. at 40-53. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas with Associate Justices Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.
3.Id. at 55-56.
4. Section 20. A. — Compensation and Benefits for Injury or Illnesses.
xxx xxx xxx
4. Those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work-related.
5. See Salas v. Transmed Manila Corp., G.R. No. 247221, June 15, 2020.
6. See Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr., 765 Phil. 341, 363 (2015).
7.Id.
8.Superior Packaging Corporation v. Balagsay, G.R. No. 178909, 683 SCRA 394, 400 (2012).
9.Rollo, pp. 87-89.
10.Id. at 77-78.
11.Id. at 79-81.