FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242205. January 16, 2019.]
MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORP., WESTFAL LARSEN MANAGEMENT A/S AND/OR MARLON R. RONO, petitioners,vs. RICARDO T. ARBOLADURA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 16, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242205 (Magsaysay Maritime Corp., Westfal Larsen Management A/S and/or Marlon R. Rono v. Ricardo T. Arboladura). — The motion for extension dated October 15, 2018 is granted. After review, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and affirm the Decision dated April 27, 2018 and Resolution dated September 19, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 144194 for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the Decision dated November 9, 2015 and Resolution dated January 28, 2016 of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators in Case No. AC-021-RCMB-NCR-MVA-085-02-09-2014.
We find no cogent reason to overturn the factual findings of the Panel, as upheld by the CA. Indeed, the employer and the seafarer are bound by the disability assessment of the third-party physician in the event that they choose to appoint one. Nonetheless, similar to what is required of the company-designated doctor, the appointed third-party physician must likewise arrive at a definite and conclusive assessment of the seafarer's disability or fitness to return to work before his or her opinion can be valid and binding between the parties. 1 The language of the assessment of the third-party doctor as to the disability of respondent brooks no argument that it is definite and conclusive.
Furthermore, it has been established that respondent's disability persisted beyond the 240-day period. As such, he is considered permanently and totally disabled, and should be awarded the corresponding disability benefits.
Finally, considering that respondent was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his right and interest, his right to attorney's fees of 10% of the total award is reasonable.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 27, 2018 and Resolution dated September 19, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 144194 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Sunit vs. OSM Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 223035, February 27, 2017, 818 SCRA 663, 678-679.