THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256783. November 17, 2021.]
PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., MARIN SHIPMANAGEMENT, LTD., petitioners,vs. ERIC L. JUSTINIANE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 17, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 256783 (Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., Marin Shipmanagement, Ltd., Petitioners, v. Eric L. Justiniane, Respondent.) — This Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari (petition) seeks to challenge the Resolutions dated 5 January 2021 1 and 9 June 2021 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 166588. The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari and prayer for injunctive reliefs filed by petitioners Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTC) and Marin Shipmanagement LTD. (Marin) (collectively, petitioners), and affirmed the Decision dated 28 August 2020 and Resolution dated 13 October 2020 of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), Office of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, in MVA-100-RCMB-NCR-167-69-05-2019.
A perusal of the instant petition shows that the same is marred by procedural defects warranting its outright dismissal. Petitioners failed to attach a copy of the ruling of the Office of the Voluntary Arbitrators (OVA), NCMB as well as other relevant documents, such as copies of the pertinent and complete portions of the records (respondent's full employment contract, copies of the pleadings filed before the NCMB and CA, complete Master's report, medical reports issued by the shoreside facility in Colombia and of the company-designated physician, among others). Likewise, the petition lacks a concise and complete narration of facts and the matters involved, such as those pertaining to the reason for respondent's repatriation, as well as the dates of respondent's repatriation and reporting to the company-designated physician for medical evaluation, among others. These are sufficient grounds for the outright denial of the petition pursuant to Sections 4 and 5, 3 Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
At any rate, even if We delve into the merits of the case, based on petitioners' statement of the facts and the attached assailed CA rulings, the Court finds no reversible error on the assailed decision and resolution warranting the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction. CAIHTE
The CA correctly upheld the findings of the OAV-NCMB that respondent was repatriated due to an accident onboard the vessel while pulling the heavy gangway which led to his lower back injuries. As found by both the OAV-NCMB and the CA, this is supported by respondent's handwritten statement dated 21 January 2018, addressed to one Cora Schmid, Deputy DPA, NSC Shipping Co. Ltd., has the logo of the vessel M/V TRF PESCARA, and a signature which appears to be that of Captain Zagorodni Eduard, Master of the vessel.
Further, the company-designated physician recommended 12 physical therapy sessions, but issued the Final Disability Assessment 5% (Back pains without reduction of mobility) only after three sessions. According to the OAV-NCMB, as affirmed by the CA, the abrupt termination of the therapy remained unexplained, worse, there is also no record that respondent was seen by the Spinal Specialist before the issuance of the assessment. To stress, a temporary total disability becomes total and permanent by operation of law when there is no valid, final, and definitive assessment from the company-designated physician within the 120/240 days period.
This Court is not a trier of facts and that the labor tribunals were unanimous in their finding that the physician's assessment did not truly reflect respondent's disability. A medical assessment must not only be final and timely. It must also be complete, final and definite. Otherwise, the medical report shall be set aside and the disability grading will not be seriously appreciated. 4
As respondent's lower back injury resulted from an accident, he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits in the amount of US$102,308.00 based on the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Likewise, the claim for attorney's fees was correctly granted because respondent was compelled to engage counsel to protect his interests. This is in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 8 of Article 2208 of the Civil Code.
There is, however, a need to modify the award to include the imposition of legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the total monetary award from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The Resolutions dated 5 January 2021 and 9 June 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 166588 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Judgment is hereby rendered ORDERING Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., and Marin Shipmanagement Ltd., to jointly and severally pay respondent Eric L. Justiniane the following amounts:
1. Full disability compensation in the amount of US$102,308.00 based on the Collective Bargaining Agreement or its peso equivalent at the time of payment;
2. Attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award; and
3. Legal interest at the rate of six percent (6% per annum) on the total monetary award from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 6
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 27-32.
2. Id. at 49-51.
3.Section 4. Contents of petition — x x x
(c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, and the reasons or arguments relied on for the allowance of the petition; (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record as would support the petition; x x x
Section 5.Dismissal or denial of petition. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
4. Olidana v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc., 772 Phil. 234 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza].
5. Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta].
6. Id.