SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243285. January 14, 2019.]
SINGA SHIP MANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC. AND SINGA SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD./SEA DREAM YACHT AS, petitioners,vs. MARIOLITO P. IGNES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 January 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243285 (Singa Ship Management Philippines, Inc. and Singa Ship Management Pte. Ltd./Sea Dream Yacht AS v. Mariolito P. Ignes)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the May 29, 2018 Decision 2 and the November 14, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 151373 for failure of petitioners Singa Ship Management Philippines, Inc. and Singa Ship Management Pte. Ltd./Sea Dream Yacht AS (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in declaring respondent Mariolito P. Ignes (Ignes) to be entitled to permanent total disability benefits.
As correctly ruled by the CA, from the time of Ignes' repatriation on November 26, 2015 until the expiration of the one hundred twenty (120)-day period on March 25, 2016, there was neither a final medical assessment nor recommendation for further treatment issued by the company-designated physician (CDP). 4 Notably, the CDP's March 30, 2016 Disability Grading and Medical Report, 5 which was in fact issued after the 120-day assessment period under Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), 6 did not state a definitive assessment of Ignes' fitness or unfitness to resume his duties as a seafarer. 7 While it declared that Ignes may return to work, it also stated that his capacity to return hinges on the result of his re-evaluation, which must be conducted six (6) months after his operation on January 25, 2016 or on or after July 25, 2016. 8 It must be emphasized that the CDP must, within the 120-day period, either make a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to resume work or the degree of his permanent disability, 9 or provide sufficient justification to extend the medical treatment from 120 days to 240 days; 10 otherwise, the seafarer's disability shall be conclusively presumed to be permanent and total, 11 as in this case. Accordingly, the CA did not err in upholding the award of permanent total disability benefits to Ignes.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-25.
2.Id. at 33-51. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now a member of this Court) and Elihu A. Ybañez, concurring.
3.Id. at 52-53.
4. See id. at 46-47.
5. Not attached to the rollo.
6. POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2010, entitled "AMENDED STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO SEAFARERS ON-BOARD OCEAN-GOING SHIPS," dated October 26, 2010. Section 20 (A) (3) of which reads:
Section 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS. —
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
3. x x x
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. In the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the company-designated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed to by the seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.
xxx xxx xxx
7. See rollo, p. 47.
8. See id.
9. See Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, 765 Phil. 341, 360 (2015). See also APQ Shipmanagement Co., Ltd. v. Caseñas, 735 Phil. 300, 320 (2014). See further Carcedo v. Maine Marine Philippines, Inc., 758 Phil. 166, 183 (2015).
10. See Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara, G.R. No. 204307, June 6, 2018.
11. See Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Rapiz, 803 Phil. 266, 273 (2017).