FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243530. March 4, 2019.]
TEODORO N. NAVALES, JR., petitioner, vs.ARL MARITIME SERVICES, INC., PANAMAX MARITIME CO., LTD. AND ASTERIO A. LAGURA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 4, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243530 — Teodoro N. Navales, Jr., petitioner, vs. ARL Maritime Services, Inc., Panamax Maritime Co., Ltd. and Asterio A. Lagura, respondents.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari of the July 26, 2018 Decision and December 12, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 147924, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioner to show that the CA committed any reversible error in issuing the said assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
A careful consideration of the Petition further indicates petitioner's failure to show any cogent reason why the actions of the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and the CA, which have passed upon the same issues raised in the present petition, should be reversed. Petitioner has failed to show that their factual findings were not based on substantial evidence or that their decisions were contrary to applicable law and jurisprudence.
The Court finds no compelling reason to doubt the common findings of the labor tribunals and the CA that petitioner was not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The CA did not err in sustaining the fit to work assessment of the company-designated physician. The assessment was considered credible considering the close monitoring and extensive treatment of petitioner's condition by the company-designated physician since his repatriation. On the other hand, petitioner's own physician, Dr. Marcelo N. Jaen, rendered a medical opinion which did not categorically declare that petitioner could not return to work as a seafarer. His pronouncement was unsupported by sufficient diagnostic and medical examinations. Thus, it was not strong enough to controvert the fitness to work assessment of the company-designated physician.
Moreover, under Section 20-B of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract, it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing a seafarer's disability and there is a procedure to contest his findings. 1 The CA aptly ruled that petitioner did not observe the procedure laid down to properly dispute the findings of the company-designated physician. In Veritas Maritime Corporation v. Gepanaga, Jr., 2 the Court held that non-observance of the requirement to have the conflicting assessments determined by a third doctor would mean that the assessment of the company-designated physician prevails. At any rate, a Certificate of Fitness to Work was voluntarily executed by petitioner. This, as correctly held by the CA, constituted a valid waiver which freed respondents from any liability.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed July 26, 2018 Decision and December 12, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 147924.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Taok, 691 Phil. 521, 540 (2012).
2. G.R. No. 206285, February 4, 2015, 750 SCRA 104, 117-118.