FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254902. March 18, 2021.]
VIRJEN SHIPPING CORPORATION, UNION MARINE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, PTE. LTD. AND/OR ERICSON M. MARQUEZ, petitioners,vs. ALFIE V. TANGPOS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 18, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254902 — (VIRJEN SHIPPING CORPORATION, UNION MARINE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, PTE. LTD. AND/OR ERICSON M. MARQUEZ, petitioners v. ALFIE V. TANGPOS, respondent). — This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioners Virjen Shipping Corporation, Union Marine Management Services, Pte. Ltd. and/or Ericson M. Marquez praying for the reversal of the July 30, 2020 Decision 2 and December 4, 2020 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 163603. The CA affirmed the July 10, 2019 Decision 4 of the Voluntary Arbitrator, which awarded total and permanent disability benefits in favor of respondent Alfie V. Tangpos.
After a perusal of the records of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed decision to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with modification the July 30, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 163603 by imposing a legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the total monetary award to be reckoned from the finality of the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator until full satisfaction. 5
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Id. at 3-52.
2.Id. at 81-85; penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, concurring.
3.Id. at 97-98.
4.Id. at 63-78; rendered by MVA Edgar P. Fernando.
5.Guagua National Colleges v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 188492, August 28, 2018; Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013).