FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237077. April 18, 2018.]
PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC. AND/OR NORWEGIAN GAS CARRIERS AS, petitioner, vs.EDUARDO V. MANALO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 18, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237077 — Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. and/or Norwegian Gas Carriers AS v. Eduardo V. Manalo
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari of the September 14, 2017 Decision and January 11, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 143480, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for: (a) lack of proof of service on the CA in accordance with Section 5 (d), Rule 56 and Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court; and (b) 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. ISHCcT
Petitioners argue that respondent's thyroid medical condition was successfully treated and resolved by the company-designated physician; thus, could not merit any disability claim. Respondent can neither base his claim on his cardiovascular illnesses as these were not properly reported upon his repatriation and that there was no indication that these were aggravated by his work on board the vessel.
We find the contentions untenable.
In Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, 1 the Court held that, if after the lapse of the 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.
In this case, the company-designated physician failed to issue a definite assessment as to respondent's fitness or unfitness to work before the expiration of the maximum 240-day medical treatment period. As aptly found by the CA, the March 14, 2014 Final Medical Report, which cleared respondent of his thyroid medical condition by the company-designated physician, 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. As such, whether respondent's cardiovascular disease was work-related/aggravated and compensable appears to be irrelevant. For lack of a categorical assessment, respondent was deemed totally and permanently disabled.
We, thus, concur with the finding of the CA that respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed September 14, 2017 Decision and January 11, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 143480. DHITCc
SO ORDERED." (Sereno, C.J., on leave; De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018).
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 702 Phil. 717, 734 and 735 (2013).