FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241926. January 7, 2019.]
JOSE TIRSO S. PLACIO, petitioner, vs.BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICE, INC. AND FRED OLSEN CRUISE LINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 7, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241926 — Jose Tirso S. Placio, Petitioner, v. Bahia Shipping Service, Inc. and Fred Olsen Cruise Lines, Respondents.
Petitioner's Motion 1 for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file his petition 2 is GRANTED.
Considering the allegations, arguments, and issues raised, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED for failure of the petitioner to: (1) pay the full amount of the docket and other legal fees; and (2) show any reversible error in the assailed Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The petition is procedurally flawed due to petitioner's nonpayment of legal fees in violation of Sections 3 3 and 5 4 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner paid the amount of P3,530.00 which lacked P1,000.00 for Sheriff's Trust Fund.
Even if this procedural flaw be overlooked, there would still be no reversible error in the assailed rulings of the Court of Appeals.
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2010, which amended the 2000 POEA Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships, expressly provides that "[if] a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment [of the company-designated physician], a third doctor may be agreed jointly by the [e]mployer and seafarer" whose "decision shall be final and binding on both parties."
Petitioner "was bound to initiate the process of referring the findings to a third-party physician by informing his employer of the same, which is mandatory considering that the POEA-SEC is part and parcel of the employment contract between seafarers and their employers." 5 Due to petitioner's failure to abide by the procedure, the Court of Appeals gave more weight to the findings of the company-designated physician and correctly dismissed the complaint.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition. The May 25, 2018 Decision and August 16, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 152897 are hereby AFFIRMED. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, C.J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2632 dated December 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-6.
2.Id. at 10-36.
3. Section 3. Docket and other lawful fees; proof of service of petition. — Unless he has theretofore done so, the petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court of the Supreme Court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the petition. Proof of service of a copy, thereof on the lower court concerned and on the adverse party shall be submitted together with the petition.
4. 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.
5.Magsaysay Mitsui Osk Marine, Inc. v. Buenaventura, G.R. No. 195878, January 10, 2018.