FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 215997. August 19, 2015.]
MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, AND MR. MARLON R. ROÑO, petitioners, vs. JUAN CARLOS QUIJANO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 19, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 215997 (Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, Princess Cruise Lines, and Mr. Marlon R. Roño v. Juan Carlos Quijano). — The letter dated July 8, 2015 of Ms. Teresa P. Gajo, Records Officer III, Officer-in-Charge, Archives Section, Court of Appeals, transmitting the Court of Appeals rollo in CA-G.R. SP No. 131746 consisting of 399 pages, in compliance with the Resolution dated April 20, 2015 is NOTED.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the June 25, 2014 Decision 1 and January 5, 2015 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 131746 for failure of petitioners Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, Princess Cruise Lines, and Mr. Marlon R. Roño (petitioners) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in ruling that the National Labor Relations Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it affirmed the award of permanent total disability benefits, sickness allowance, reimbursement for medical expenses, moral damages, and attorney's fees in favor of respondent Juan Carlos Quijano (respondent).
As aptly pointed out by the CA, while respondent's illness is not one of the occupational diseases enumerated under Section 32-A of the Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Ships, the same is disputably presumed to be work-related, pursuant to Section 20 (A) (4) thereof. This presumption should be overturned only when the employer's refutation is found to be supported by substantial evidence 3 which, however, does not obtain in this case, as it was not convincingly shown that respondent was not exposed to harmful working conditions which may have caused or aggravated his illness. Besides, as the CA correctly observed, the report of the company-designated physician that respondent's illness was not work-related cannot be given credence since the results of the Computer Tomography scan which was said to be unremarkable, as well as the report of the Ears, Nose, and Throat Specialist who examined respondent, were not attached thereto.
SO ORDERED." EcTCAD
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 17-34. Penned by Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Manuel M. Barrios concurring.
2. Id. at 36-37.
3. See Racelis v. United Philippine Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 198408, November 12, 2014.