FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240121. August 8, 2018.]
PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., petitioner,vs. ROLLY G. DERAPER, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 8, 2018which reads as follows: DETACa
"G.R. No. 240121 — Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. vs. Rolly G. Deraper
After a judicious review of petitioner's allegations and in accordance with Rule 45 and other related provisions of the Rules of Court, the Court resolves to DENY the present Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of the petitioner to show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA) in rendering the assailed Decision 1 and Resolution dated February 28, 2018 and June 8, 2018, respectively, in CA G.R. SP No. 152876.
Petitioner Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTC) avers that the CA erred in ignoring the fit-to-work assessment of its designated doctors and in acquiescing with the medical report of respondent's physician, Dr. Omar T. Cortes (Dr. Cortes). In support of its claim, PTC sets forth the following reasons: 1) the company doctors were able to issue an assessment within 240 days from the date of repatriation; 2) Dr. Cortes merely relied on the tests and procedures performed by the company doctors; 3) Dr. Cortes saw respondent only once on August 30, 2016; and 4) Dr. Cortes just inspected the surface of respondent's scar and swelling.
PTC, by raising the aforementioned issue, essentially beseeches this Court to review the facts of the case. Basically, PTC asks that the Court re-evaluate or re-examine, yet again, the probative value of the evidence presented (i.e., the conflicting medical assessments of PTC's physicians and respondent's own doctor).
However, the Rules of Court explicitly provide that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45, such as the one at bench. The present mode of appeal, generally, may not delve into factual questions because this Court is not a trier of facts. The factual findings of the lower courts shall not be disturbed on appeal and are binding on this Court subject only to certain recognized exceptions. 2
Besides, it is unfair for PTC to insist on the medical opinion of its company-designated physicians considering that respondent informed PTC and expressed his disagreement with the said assessment. Notably, respondent presented the conflicting finding of his own doctor, and even demanded a referral to an independent third doctor. Unfortunately, and to its prejudice, PTC did not heed such demand.
In INC Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Rosales, 3 the Court stated that "non-referral to a third physician, whose decision shall be considered as final and binding, constitutes a breach of the POEA-SEC." The Court, in the same case, even went on to declare the company's obligation to refer to a third doctor upon notification, viz.: CAIHTE
To definitively clarify how a conflict situation should be handled, upon notification that the seafarer disagrees with the company doctor's assessment based on the duly and fully disclosed contrary assessment from the seafarer's own doctor, the seafarer shall then signify his intention to resolve the conflict by the referral of the conflicting assessments to a third doctor whose ruling, under the POEA-SEC, shall be final and binding on the parties. Upon notification, the company carries the burden of initiating the process for the referral to a third doctor commonly agreed between the parties. 4 (emphasis ours)
Consequently, by ignoring respondent's demand, PTC was remiss in its duty to instigate the appointment of an independent third doctor. The Court is thus constrained to sustain the common ruling of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and the CA that respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS the assailed Decision and Resolution dated February 28, 2018 and June 8, 2018, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 152876.
SO ORDERED."Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Rafael Antonio M. Santos.
2. (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record.
3. G.R. No. 195832, 744 Phil. 774, 786 (2014).
4.Id. at 788.