FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 259638. April 26, 2022.][Formerly UDK 17300]
MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION and PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD., petitioners, vs.DANILO T. DOLON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 26, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 259638 [Formerly UDK 17300] (Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., Petitioners, vs. Danilo T. Dolon, Respondent). — Considering the allegations, arguments, and issues raised in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, 1 the Court resolves to DENY it for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 166167 committed any reversible error in affirming the ruling of the Office of the Voluntary Arbitrators (VA), National Conciliation and Mediation Board in MVA-100-RCMB-NCR-218-89-06-2019.
The issue as to whether the disability of respondent Danilo T. Dolon (respondent) is total and permanent or only Grade 12 is clearly factual in nature. Such issue cannot be entertained in a Rule 45 petition where the Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law that might have been committed by the lower tribunals. 2
In any case, the CA did not err in upholding the finding of the VA that respondent was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
In Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, 3 the Court summarized the rules governing a claim for total and permanent disability benefits, viz.:
In summary, if there is a claim for total and permanent disability benefits by a seafarer, the following 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; EcTCAD
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
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. 4 (Italics supplied)
As explained above, the assessment of the company-designated physician on the seafarer's disability grading must meet the following standards: (1) it must be issued within the period of 120 or 240 days, as the case may be; and (2) it must be final and definitive.
The responsibility of the company-designated physician to arrive at a definite assessment within the prescribed periods necessitates that the perceived disability rating has been properly established and inscribed in a valid and timely medical report. 5 Otherwise, the seafarer shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled. 6
As aptly found by the CA, the company-designated physician failed to explain in detail the progress of respondent's condition and the approximate period needed for him to fully recover. In fact, it was only during the grievance proceedings on March 5, 2019, from respondent's repatriation on May 12, 2018, that petitioners furnished respondent with a copy of the company-designated physician's medical report. The medical report even failed to state whether respondent was fit to return to work. Indubitably, petitioner failed to show that the company-designated physician arrived at a definite assessment of respondent's fitness to work or permanent disability within the required period, warranting his entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits.
For these reasons, it is clear that the CA correctly affirmed the findings of the VA.
However, the Court imposes legal interest on the total monetary award in favor of respondent at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction pursuant to Nacar v. Gallery Frames. 7
ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the Court of Appeals' Resolutions dated January 19, 2021 and August 23, 2021 in CA-G.R. SP 166167. The total monetary award in favor of respondent Danilo T. Dolon shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction.
The petitioners' payment for docket and other legal fees in the amount of P4,530.00 as evidenced by O.R. No. 327330-SC-EP dated April 4, 2022; and the letter dated March 31, 2022 of Atty. Maricris S. Ferrer, counsel for petitioners, addressed to the Judicial Records Office, this Court, submitting the postal money order checks as filing fee for the petition filed via registered mail on September 28, 2021, are both NOTED. HSAcaE
SO ORDERED."Gaerlan, J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-17.
2. See Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. v. People, 721 Phil. 760, 770 (2013).
3. 765 Phil. 341 (2015).
4.Id. at 362-363.
5.Ampo-on v. Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc., G.R. No. 240614, June 10, 2019, citing Pastor v. Bibby Shipping Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 238842, November 19, 2018.
6.Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, 702 Phil. 717 (2013).
7. 716 Phil. 267 (2013).