FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243785. March 25, 2019.]
PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC./SEASPAN CREW MANAGEMENT, LTD./ANDREI CARLO TORIBIO, petitioners, vs.ROGER SINAL JANCELAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 25, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243785 — Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc./Seaspan Crew Management, Ltd./Andrei Carlo Toribio, petitioners, v. Roger Sinal Jancelan, respondent.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari of the September 4, 2018 Decision and December 7, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 155166, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for failure 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.
Petitioners insist that respondent's illnesses were not work-related and were not compensable. They further argue that respondent's medical condition was already treated and resolved by the company-designated physician; thus, could not merit any disability claim.
We find the contentions untenable.
It bears emphasis that the CA affirmed the finding of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) that respondent's illnesses are work-related. The question of whether or not a particular illness is work-related is essentially a factual issue. And since this Court is not a trier of facts, the factual findings of both labor tribunals should be accorded respect and finality they deserve. 1 For having suffered a work-related illness, respondent is entitled to disability benefits.
In Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, 2 the Court held that, if after the lapse of the 120/240-day medical treatment period, the seafarer was still incapacitated to perform his usual duties and the company-designated physician had not yet declared him fit to work or permanently disabled, whether total or permanent, the conclusive presumption that the latter was totally and permanently disabled arises. ASEcHI
In this case, the company-designated physician failed to issue a definite assessment as to respondent's fitness or unfitness to work. As aptly found by the CA, the company-designated physician did not state in his September 28, 2016 Medical Report that respondent was already fit for duty. The medical report, which cleared respondent of his illness, was not the declaration required by the POEA Standard Employment Contract. It was therefore by operation of law that brought forth the conclusive presumption that respondent was totally and permanently disabled. For lack of a categorical assessment, respondent was deemed totally and permanently disabled.
We, thus, affirm the finding of the CA that respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. We also see no reason to deny respondent his sickness allowance as both the NCMB and the CA found that there was no indication that he received such benefit.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed September 4, 2018 Decision and December 7, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 155166.
SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., on official business.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Libang, Jr. v. Indochina Ship Management, Inc., 743 Phil. 286, 298 (2014).
2. 702 Phil. 717, 734 and 735 (2013).