FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242106. January 16, 2019.]
MICHAEL H. TONOLETE, petitioner,vs. GERMAN MARINE AGENCIES, INC., OLDENDORFF CARRIERS GMBH & CO. KG AND CAPT. CARLOS A. ANACTA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 16, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242106 — Michael H. Tonolete, Petitioner, v. German Marine Agencies, Inc., Oldendorff Carriers GMBH & Co. KG and Capt. Carlos A. Anacta, Respondents.
The Court hereby resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file his Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari of the March 20, 2018 Decision and September 14, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 148317, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioner 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.
A careful consideration of the Petition further indicates petitioner's failure to show any cogent reason why the actions of the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and the CA, which have passed upon the same issues raised in the present Petition, should be reversed. Petitioner failed to show that their factual findings were not based on substantial evidence or that their decisions were contrary to applicable law and jurisprudence.
The Court finds no compelling reason to doubt the common finding of the labor tribunals and the CA that petitioner's illnesses were not work-related or work-aggravated and, therefore, not compensable. The question of whether or not a particular illness is work-related is essentially a factual issue. And, since this Court is not a trier of facts, the factual findings of the labor tribunals should be accorded the respect and finality they deserve. 1
At any rate, the Court finds that the CA did not err in sustaining the fit to work assessment of the company-designated physician. The assessment is considered credible considering the close monitoring and extensive treatment of petitioner's condition by the company-designated physician. The extensive medical attention given to petitioner starting from his repatriation was supported by medical reports. On the other hand, petitioner's own physician, Dr. Emmanuel Trinidad, rendered a medical opinion after only a single examination of petitioner. His pronouncement of petitioner's unfitness to resume sea duties was unsupported by adequate explanation and was merely based on the previous medical history, examination, and treatment performed by the company-designated physician.
Moreover, the failure of petitioner to comply with the rule on referral to a third doctor, in case of conflicting assessments by the company-designated physician and the seafarer's doctor of choice, militates against his claim. As aptly found by the NLRC, the records of the case are bereft of any evidence showing that petitioner had requested that the conflict between the assessments be referred for a final and binding third opinion. Hence, the company-designated physician's timely assessment, rendered within 120 days from petitioner's repatriation, which was not properly disputed in accordance with an agreed procedure, is considered final and binding. The CA, thus, did not err in denying petitioner's claim for total and permanent disability benefits.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed March 20, 2018 Decision and September 14, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 148317.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA
Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Libang, Jr. v. Indochina Ship Management, Inc., 743 Phil. 286, 298 (2014).