FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235773. April 23, 2018.]
JUNE S. SURRIGA, petitioner, vs.BLUE MANILA, INC., GLOBAL CREW MANAGEMENT BV AND/OR PAZ FRANCISCA ARCELLANA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 23, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235773 — June S. Surriga, Petitioner, v. Blue Manila, Inc., Global Crew Management BV and/or Paz Francisca Arcellana, Respondents.
Acting on petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to GRANT him a period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on November 21, 2017 within which to file said petition. ITAaHc
Considering the allegations, arguments, and issues raised in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court further resolves to DENY the same for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 138298 committed any reversible error in affirming the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) Decision, which affirmed the dismissal of petitioner's disability claims against respondents.
Petitioner contends that he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits as he purportedly sustained a work-related illness during the term of his contract with respondents. He also argues that there was a reasonable connection with his duties as bosun and his heart disease.
However, the foregoing issues are factual in nature and thus, are beyond the scope of this Petition. The Court is not a trier of facts and only questions of law may be raised in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. While this Rule admits certain exceptions, none of which was established in this case. At the same time, considering the uniform findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA that petitioner did not acquire a work-related illness and that he is not entitled to permanent and total disability benefits, the Court affirms the same as such uniform findings are conclusive and binding upon the Court. 1
More importantly, seafarers, like petitioner, are contractual employees. Considering that petitioner completed his employment contract with respondents and that he was not repatriated for any medical reason, then, he could no longer claim benefits under the same, and his disability claim must thus be dismissed. 2 cSaATC
Also, considering the fact that petitioner was not repatriated due to medical reasons, it follows that there was no medical opinion issued by the company-designated physician to speak of. Moreover, no weight should be given to the medical certificate issued by "Dr. Pascual" since it merely declared petitioner to be unfit for sea duties. It is settled that disability benefits should be based on the disability gradings listed in the POEA 3 Standard Employment Contract, and not on the number of days the seafarer was incapacitated. In addition, since petitioner was not medically repatriated, there was no referral to a third-doctor opinion before he filed the complaint against which his disability claims should be assessed.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed December 22, 2016 Decision and October 19, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138298.
Pursuant to Section 4, 4 Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court of Appeals is DELETED as party-respondent in this case.
SO ORDERED." Sereno, C.J., on leave; De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018; Tijam, J., no part; Velasco, Jr., J., designated as additional member per Raffle dated March 26, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Gabunas, Sr. v. Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc., 653 Phil. 457, 463-464 (2010).
2.Ceriola v. Naess Shipping Philippines, Inc., 758 Phil. 321, 338 (2015).
3. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.
4. Section 4. Contents of Petition. — The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full name of the appealing party as the petitioner and the adverse party as respondent, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents[.]