FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242198. December 3, 2018.]
SENATOR CREWING [MANILA], INC. AND AQUANAUT SHIP MANAGEMENT, LTD., petitioners,vs. WILFREDO A. LUNZON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 3, 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242198 (Senator Crewing [Manila], Inc. and Aquanaut Ship Management, Ltd. v. Wilfredo A. Lunzon)1 — The petitioners' motion for an extension of seven (7) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After review, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision. Said Decision found that respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability allowance, pursuant to Section 32 of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract. By operation of law, petitioners' failure to notify respondent of the latter's definite medical assessment and disability grading by its own company-designated physician for over 240 days deemed respondent, under legal contemplation, totally and permanently disabled. This rule is in place to avoid an unfair situation where the seafarer's disability rating shall be solely at the mercy of the company-designated physician, without any timely redress option afforded to the former. 2
Anent the other issues raised, elementary is the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts, and only errors of law are generally reviewed in petitions for review on certiorari of decisions of the Court of Appeals. In labor cases, this doctrine applies with even greater force, 3 where factual questions are for labor tribunals to resolve. 4 The findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the National Labor Relations Commission are accorded with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. When further passed upon and upheld by the Court of Appeals, they are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court and will not normally be disturbed save for exceptional circumstances which are not obtained in this case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated November 22, 2017 and Resolution dated September 18, 2018 denying the Motion for Reconsideration issued by the Court of Appeals Special Former Eleventh Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 150007 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also referred to as Wilfredo A. Lunzon, Jr. in some parts of the pleading.
2.Carcedo v. Maine Marine Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 203084, April 15, 2015, 755 SCRA 543, 560.
3.San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Employees Union-Alliance of Filipino Workers v. San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation, Inc., G.R. No. 143341, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 193, 205-206.
4.Masangcay v. Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 172800, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 592.