SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245999. June 17, 2019.]
REYNALDO U. VELASCO, JR., petitioner, vs.WESTMINSTER SEAFARER MANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., WALLEM SHIPMANAGEMENT SINGAPORE, PTE., LTD., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated17 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245999 (Reynaldo U. Velasco, Jr. v. Westminster Seafarer Management Philippines, Inc., Wallem Shipmanagement Singapore, Pte., Ltd.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the August 13, 2018 Decision 2 and the February 21, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 153069 for failure of petitioner Reynaldo U. Velasco, Jr. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the dismissal of his complaint 4 for total and permanent disability benefits against respondents Westminster Seafarer Management Philippines, Inc. and Wallem Shipmanagement Singapore Pte., Ltd. (respondents). HTcADC
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, considering that: (a) the fit-to-work certification of the company-designated physician was more credible having been arrived at after three (3) months of close monitoring as compared to the independent physician's medical certificate which contains vague diagnosis and was also not shown to have been issued after more than one (1) examination or consultation; 5 and (b) petitioner's non-referral to a third doctor requirement under the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), 6 in light of the seeming contrasting findings of the company-designated physician and independent physician, would mean that the assessment of the company-designated physician prevails. 7 Furthermore, the petition is likewise dismissible for petitioner's failure to attach copies of the decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission and the Labor Arbiter, material portions of the record, as required under Section 4 (d), 8 in relation to Section 5, 9 Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-41.
2.Id. at 46-62. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of this Court) with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
3.Id. at 44-45.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. Under these circumstances, the assessment of the company-designated physician is more credible for having been arrived at after months of medical attendance and diagnosis, compared with the assessment of a private physician done in one day on the basis of an examination or existing medical records. (Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Rapiz, 803 Phil. 266, 275-276 [2017], citing Formerly INC Shipmanagement, Incorporated [now INC Navigation Co. Philippines, Inc.] v. Rosales, 744 Phil. 774, 789 [2014].) See also rollo, p. 60.
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.
7. The Court has consistently held that non-observance of the requirement to have the conflicting assessments determined by a third doctor would mean that the assessment of the company-designated physician prevails. (See Ventura, Jr. v. Crewtech Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 225995, November 20, 2017.) See also rollo, pp. 60-61.
8. 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 x x x (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record as would support the petition[.]
9. 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[.]