FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242327. January 23, 2019]
MST MARINE SERVICES (PHILS.), INC., THOME SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE., LTD. AND/OR ENGR. ARTEMIO SERAFICO, petitioners,vs. RAMY OCLARIT COMPRA, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 23, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242327 — MST Marine Services (Phils.), Inc., Thome Ship Management Pte., Ltd. and/or Engr. Artemio Serafico, Petitioners, v. Ramy Oclarit Compra, Jr., Respondent.
Petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file their Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED.
Considering the allegations, arguments, and issues raised in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 152003 committed any reversible error in affirming the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. (OFW-M) 03-000227-17; NLRC NCR Case No. (M) 08-10586-16.
Jurisprudence has consistently stressed that the company-designated doctor is required to arrive at his or her assessment on the medical condition of the seafarer within a maximum period of 240 days from repatriation. Failure to do so would result in the seafarer being deemed to be permanently and totally disabled and thus, entitled to full disability benefits. 1
As noted by the NLRC and the CA, petitioners did not refute respondent's claim that the latter received the supposed assessment of the company-designated doctor beyond the 240-day period. Respondent saw the said assessment for the first time when petitioners attached it to their position paper, which was already beyond 240 days from his repatriation. Such being the case, the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA, correctly held that respondent was already deemed permanently and totally disabled given that the company-designated doctor failed to give his assessment on his (respondent) condition within the above-mentioned 240-day maximum period provided by law.
At the same time, the award of attorney's fees is with merit considering that respondent was compelled to litigate in order to protect his rights. 2
Given these, the CA correctly held that the NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in granting respondent's claim for permanent and total disability benefits.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed July 24, 2018 Decision and September 27, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 152003.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara, G.R. No. 204307, June 6, 2018.
2.Id.