SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239748. March 11, 2019.]
PACIFIC OCEAN MANNING, INC., INTERNATIONAL TANKER MANAGEMENT, AND HERBERT SEBASTIAN L. TAN, petitioners,vs. HENRY TRASMONTE, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11March 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239748 (Pacific Ocean Manning Inc., International Tanker Management, and Herbert Sebastian L. Tan v. Henry Trasmonte, substituted by his heirs)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the July 13, 2017 Decision 2 and the May 23, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 139848 for failure of petitioners Pacific Ocean Manning Inc., International Tanker Management, and Herbert Sebastian L. Tan (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding that respondent Henry Trasmonte (Trasmonte) is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the company-designated physician's assessment cannot be given greater weight for being bias on its face and unsupported by the actual medical records of Trasmonte. 4 The assessment itself simply concluded that there is "moderate rigidity or 2/3 loss of lifting power of the trunk;" 5 without considering the other findings in the previous reports that Trasmonte's pain "remains at 6-7 level, that his movements are guarded, and that he has difficulty with walking in heel and toe." 6 Petitioners also failed to dispute that Trasmonte was "dependent on his crutches, had difficulty in walking, cannot endure long standing and sitting position and [had] no lifting power" throughout the proceedings. 7 While petitioner invokes the failure of Trasmonte to observe the third doctor referral clause as reason to rely solely on the assessment of the company-designated physician, it has already been held by this Court that resort to a third doctor is unnecessary when there is clear bias in the assessment of the company-designated physician, 8 as in this case. Settled is the rule that factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court. 9 Although there are exceptions to this rule, 10 none of which are obtaining in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 38-64.
2.Id. at 15-30. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring.
3.Id. at 8-13.
4.Id. at 12.
5.Id. at 162.
6. See id. at 28.
7.Id.
8.C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Castillo, G.R. No. 208215, April 19, 2017, 824 SCRA 14, 31.
9.Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna, 700 Phil. 1, 10 (2012).
10.Id.