SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242358. November 5, 2018.]
MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILIPPINES, INC./MARLOW NAVIGATION NETHERLANDS BV, petitioners, vs. ALEXANDER S. OLAIVAR, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 November 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242358 (Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc./Marlow Navigation Netherlands BV v. Alexander S. Olaivar)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the February 27, 2018 Decision 2 and the September 27, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 151826 for failure of petitioner Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc./Marlow Navigation Netherlands BV (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the finding that respondent Alexander S. Olaivar (respondent) is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits and attorney's fees.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner failed to discharge its burden of refuting the disputable presumption of work-relatedness of respondent's illness 4 as provided under Section 20 (A) (4) 5 of the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). 6 On the other hand, respondent was able to prove the causal connection between the nature of his employment and his illness, or that the risk of contracting the same was increased by his working conditions to warrant compensability of his illness as provided under Section 32-A 7 thereof. 8 Since it was not refuted that petitioner's company-designated physician failed to arrive at a final assessment of respondent's fitness to work within the 120/240-day period nor was it disputed that the latter's condition remained unresolved, 9 he was conclusively presumed to be totally and permanently disabled by operation of law. 10 Hence, the award of US$60,000.00 11 to respondent pursuant to the 2010 POEA-SEC that is deemed incorporated in every seafarer's employment contract must be sustained. In this regard, the CA cannot be faulted in sustaining the award of attorney's fees as respondent was clearly compelled to litigate to protect his interest. 12 It bears stressing that factual findings of the labor tribunals, when affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded not only respect, but even finality, and thus binding upon this Court, as in this case. 13
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on official leave.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-24.
2.Id. at 30-54. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, concurring.
3.Id. at 55-59.
4. See id. at 45.
5. Section 20 (A) (4) of the 2010 POEA-SEC provides:
Section 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS. —
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
4. Those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed work-related.
6. POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2010, entitled "AMENDED STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO SEAFARERS ON-BOARD OCEAN-GOING SHIPS" dated October 26, 2010.
7. Section 32-A of the 2010 POEA-SEC provides:
Section 32-A. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES. —
For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied:
1. The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein;
2. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks;
3. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; and
4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.
8. See rollo, p. 45.
9. See id. at 43.
10.Tamin v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, 794 Phil. 286, 301 (2016).
11. See rollo, p. 54.
12. Article 2208 of the Civil Code reads:
Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;
xxx xxx xxx
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability law[.]
13. See Nahas v. Olarte, 734 Phil. 569, 580 (2014). See also Unsigned Resolution in Caboboy v. Tacloban Gleen Marketing, Inc., G.R. Nos. 231520-21, January 8, 2018.