ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-2015 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 197709, August 03, 2015 - JOSE YULO AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES PERLA CABAYLO DAVIS AND SCOTT DAVIS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200969, August 03, 2015 - CONSOLACION D. ROMERO AND ROSARIO S.D. DOMINGO, Petitioners, v. ENGRACIA D. SINGSON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015 - JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 8708 (CBD Case No. 08-2192), August 12, 2015 - SPOUSES BYRON AND MARIA LUISA SAUNDERS, Complainants, v. ATTY. LYSSA GRACE S. PAGANO-CALDE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 177803, August 03, 2015 - SPOUSES EMILIANO L. JALBAY, SR. AND MAMERTA C. JALBAY, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201365, August 03, 2015 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUELA FLORES Y SALAZAR @ WELLA Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 198908, August 03, 2015 - VIRGINIA OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. DEOGRACIO OCAMPO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195175, August 10, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. TOLEDO POWER COMPANY, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 199645 - TOLEDO POWER COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213233, August 05, 2015 - BLISS DEVELOPMENT CORP./HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MONTANO DIAZ, DOMINGO TAPAY, AND EDGAR H. ARREZA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197953, August 05, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2ND DIVISION), QUINTIN SALUDAGA Y BORDEOS, ARTHUS ADRIATICO Y ERUDA AND ROMEO DE LUNA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187524, August 05, 2015 - SPOUSES MARIA BUTIONG AND FRANCISCO VILLAFRIA, SUBSTITUTED BY DR. RUEL B. VILLAFRIA, Petitioners, v. MA. GRACIA RIÑOZA PLAZO AND MA. FE RIÑOZA ALARAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209447, August 11, 2015 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), Petitioner, v. HON. WINLOVE M. DUMAYAS, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, MAKATI CITY AND UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK (UCPB), Respondents.; G.R. NO. 210901 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), Petitioner, v. HON. WINLOVE M. DUMAYAS, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, MAKATI CITY AND UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION (COCOLIFE), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188739, August 05, 2015 - BENJAMIN E. RAVAGO, Petitioner, v. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, SUBSTITUTED BY BRIGHT VENTURES REALTY, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215714, August 12, 2015 - OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EFREN BASAL CAYAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. 11238-Ret., August 18, 2015 - IN RE: EXPIRATION OF FIXED TERM OF OFFICE OF ATTY. SAADUDDIN A. ALAUYA, OFFICE OF THE JURISCONSULT, ZAMBOANGA CITY

  • G.R. No. 167838, August 05, 2015 - JOSE V. TOLEDO, GLENN PADIERNOS AND DANILO PADIERNOS, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, LOURDES RAMOS, ENRIQUE RAMOS, ANTONIO RAMOS, MILAGROS RAMOS AND ANGELITA RAMOS AS HEIRS OF SOCORRO RAMOS, GUILLERMO PABLO, PRIMITIVA CRUZ AND A.R.C. MARKETING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ALBERTO C. DY, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 10635, August 26, 2015 - NOEL S. SORREDA, Complainant, v. ATTY. DAVID L. KHO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-14-3253, August 19, 2015 - NICETAS TANIEZA-CALAYOAN, Complainant, v. ELMER JERRY C. CALAYOAN, PROCESS SERVER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 2, BANGUED, ABRA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8084, August 24, 2015 - PATROCINIA H. SALABAO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ANDRES C. VILLARUEL, JR., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 9834, August 26, 2015 - SAMUEL B. ARNADO, Complainant, v. ATTY. HOMOBONO A. ADAZA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7314, August 25, 2015 - MARY ANN T. FLORES, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR, JR., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. CA-12-26-P, August 17, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ANA MARIE ABARENTOS, RECORDS OFFICER IV, COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206220, August 19, 2015 - LUIS UY, SUBSTITUTED BY LYDIA UY VELASQUEZ AND SHIRLEY UY MACARAIG, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JOSE LACSAMANA AND ROSAURA* MENDOZA, SUBSTITUTED BY CORAZON BUENA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214865, August 19, 2015 - ROSVEE C. CELESTIAL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201822, August 12, 2015 - MARINA PORT SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202967, August 05, 2015 - ALICIA Y. LAUREL, SUBSTITUTED BY HER SOLE HEIR AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE JUAN MIGUEL Y. LAUREL, Petitioner, v. FERDINAND M. VARDELEON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 183869, August 03, 2015 - LEONARDO L. VILLALON, Petitioner, v. RENATO E. LIRIO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179751, August 05, 2015 - HERMINIA L. MENDOZA, IN HER CAPACITY AS OIC OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LUCENA CITY, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ARMANDO AND ANGELA GARANA AND FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO., INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208320, August 19, 2015 - GRACE DAVID Y CESAR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 174542, August 03, 2015 - KAREN GO, Petitioner, v. LAMBERTO ECHAVEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196875, August 19, 2015 - TEDDY MARAVILLA, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH RIOS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205113, August 26, 2015 - HONORLITA ASCANO-CUPINO AND FLAVIANA ASCANO-COLOCADO, Petitioners, v. PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205823, August 17, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REGIE BREIS Y ALVARADO AND GARY YUMOL Y TUAZON,* Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 198643, August 19, 2015 - MARSMAN & COMPANY AND QUIRINO R. ILEDAN, Petitioners, v. ARTEMIO M. LIGO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 - NG MENG TAM, Petitioner, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-11-2982 (Formerly O.C.A. IPI No. 08-2913-P), August 17, 2015 - FORMER JUDGE FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN, Complainant, v. SALVADOR G. COMUYOG, JR., CLERK III, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187882, August 24, 2015 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES HIPPOCRATES AND MELANIE PIMENTEL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190984, August 19, 2015 - ACOMARIT ACOMARIT LIMITED, PHILS., AND/OR HONGKONG, Petitioners, v. GOMER L. DOTIMAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 170706, August 26, 2015 - PRUDENCIO CARANTO, Petitioner, v. BERGESEN D.Y. PHILS. AND/OR BERGESEN D.Y. A.S.A., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194617, August 05, 2015 - LA TONDEÑA, INC., Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206612, August 17, 2015 - TOYOTA ALABANG, INC., Petitioner, v. EDWIN GAMES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203142, August 26, 2015 - THE PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY (PPA), Petitioner, v. COALITION OF PPA OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTED BY HECTOR E. MIOLE, ET AL., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 182157, August 17, 2015 - ANLUD METAL RECYCLING CORPORATION, AS REPRESENTED BY ALFREDO A. DY, Petitioner, v. JOAQUIN ANG, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5161, August 25, 2015 - RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ROLANDO S. TORRES AS A MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR.

  • G.R. Nos. 191370-71, August 10, 2015 - RODOLFO BASILONIA, LEODEGARIO CATALAN AND JOHN BASILONIA, Petitioners, v. HON. DELANO F. VLLLARUZ, ACTING IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ROXAS CITY, BRANCH 16, AND DIXON ROBLETE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 165146, August 12, 2015 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND VERNETTE G. UMALI, Petitioners, v. BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION, Respondent.; G.R. N0. 165209 - RAMON K. ILUSORIO AND ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, Petitioners, v. BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203066, August 05, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODELIO LLOBERA Y OFIZA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 190892, August 17, 2015 - VICENTE H. MANULAT, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 183370, August 17, 2015 - NATION PETROLEUM GAS, INCORPORATED, NENA ANG, MARIO ANG, ALISON A. SY, GUILLERMO G. SY, NELSON ANG, LUISA ANG, RENATO C. ANG, PAULINE T. ANG, RICKY C. ANG,1 AND MELINDA ANG, Petitioners, v. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, SUBSTITUTED BY PHILIPPINE ASSET GROWTH ONE, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015 - JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. AMPARO M. CABOTAJE-TANG, HON. SAMUEL R. MARTIRES, AND HON. ALEX L. QUIROZ OF THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201405, August 24, 2015 - LIWAYWAY ANDRES, RONNIE ANDRES, AND PABLO B. FRANCISCO, Petitioners, v. STA. LUCIA REALTY & DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 153810, August 12, 2015 - WINSTON R. GARCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), Petitioners, v. ANGELITA TOLENTINO, EDELITO ZOLLO EDRALINDA, KATHLYN A. UMALI, VIVIAN ROSIELLE CERVANTES, EDITH MEDINA, ROMELO CABANGON, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 167297 - MELINA I. GARCIA, CECILIA V. LAS, NIMFA PENALOSA, ROSANA R. ZEPEDA, RACHELLE L. JACOB, MARIBEL B. TENA, AND EDUVIGIS S. ANGELES (IN LIEU OF ANGELITA TOLENTINO FOR THE NATIONAL FORESTATION DEVELOPMENT OFFICE-DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.), Petitioners, v. WINSTON GARCIA, ET AL., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192943, August 12, 2015 - UNITED DUMANGAS PORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, ATTY. OSMAR M. SEVILLA, GENERAL MANAGER, ATTY. FERNANDO B. CLAVERINA, PORT MANAGER, PORT MANAGEMENT OFFICER-ILOILO; AND RAUL T. SANTOS, PORT DISTRICT MANAGER, PORT DISTRICT OFFICE-VISAYAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200114, August 24, 2015 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. DEBBIE UBAÑA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 177168, August 03, 2015 - NAVY OFFICERS' VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC. (NOVAI), Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 163598, August 12, 2015 - AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION (ARBA), AS REPRESENTED BY ISAIAS "ACE" NICOLAS IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT, VIOLETA BATADHAY, JESUS F. DANAO, DOMINADOR RIOSA, EVA I. FLORIDO, VIRGINIA CARIAS, WILLIAM D. DORONELA, ELSA MENGOLIO, FEDELINA AMENGYAO, REBECCA REBAMBA, MELANI CADAG, SOFRONIA SABORDO, MYRNA SANTIAGO, JOSELYNDA MANALANZAN, NORA I. REBUZANO, NATIVIDAD PLACIDO, ALGERICO L. GAEGUERA, RUBEN G. ACEBEDO, MARGIE M. VALDEZ, HELEN S. BUNI, EMELINDA FERNANDEZ, JULIETA J. AVENGONZA, VIOLETA C. ASIS, CARINA C. CABRERA, EDUARDO M. DILAY, SIMEONA V. ROLEDA, EVELYN SANTO ELEUTERIA A. NOLASCO, TERESA CRUZ, MELBA ABRENICA, BESAME VILLACORTA, ROSALINA HERNANDEZ, VERONICA DOMULOT, LUCIA SOUN, ILUMENADA RONQUILLO, REGINA LOPEZ, AMPARO GREY, HIPOLITO MANDAO, JUAN DELA VEGA, PRESCILIANA LLEMIT, LEBERETA IGNACIO, FRANCISCO VALDEMOR, Petitioners, v. FIL-ESTATE INC., PROPERTIES, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 164660 - THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB), AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. KINGSVILLE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND JOHNSON ONG, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 164779 - AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION (ARBA), VIOLETA BATADHAY, NATIVIDAD PLACIDO, JESUS F. DANAO, EVA I. FLORIDO, VIRGINIA CARIAS, WILLIAM D. DORONELA, ELSA MENGOLIO, ROBERTO ISIP, REBECCA REBAMBA, SOFRONIA SABORDO, MYRNA SANTIAGO, JOSELYNDA MANALANZAN, NORA I. REBUZANO, ALGERICO L. GALQUERA, RUBEN G. ACEBEDO, MARGIE M. VALDEZ, HELEN S. BUNI, JULIETA J. AVENGONZA, VIOLETA C. ASIS, CARINA C. CABRERA, EDUARDO M. DILAY, ELEUTERIA A. NOLASCO, TERESA CRUZ, MELBA ABRENICA, VERONICA DOMULOT, LUCIA SUN, ILUMENADA RONQUILLO AND PRESCILIANA LLEMIT, Petitioners, v. KINGSVILLE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND JOHNSONONG, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 164974, August 05, 2015 - CHARLIE TE, Petitioner, v. HON. AUGUSTO V. BREVA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 11TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 10, DAVAO CITY; U R. BAHINTING, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SARANGGANI DISTRICT OFFICE; AND PRYCE GASES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211302, August 12, 2015 - PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., CARLOS C. SALINAS, AND NORWEGIAN CREW MANAGEMENT A/S, Petitioners, v. CESAR C. PELAGIO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015 - ROMMEL C. ARNADO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND FLORANTE CAPITAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211649, August 12, 2015 - AQA GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner, v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, Respondent.; G.R. No. 211742 - JE-AN SUPREME BUILDERS AND SALES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203355, August 18, 2015 - LEO R. ROSALES, EDGAR SOLIS JONATHAN G. RANIOLA, LITO FELICIANO, RAYMUNDO DIDAL, JR., NESTOR SALIN, ARNULFO S. ABRIL, RUBEN FLORES, DANTE FERMA AND MELCHOR SELGA, Petitioners, v. NEW A.N.J.H. ENTERPRISES & N.H. OIL MILL CORPORATION, NOEL AWAYAN, MA. FE AWAYAN, BYRON ILAGAN, HEIDI A. ILAGAN AND AVELINO AWAYAN, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-14-2383 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 05-2301-RTJ), August 17, 2015 - DR. CORAZON D. PADERANGA, DULCE P. GUIBELONDO, PATRIA P. DIAZ, CARMENCITA P. ORSENO, AND DR. AMOR P. GALON, Complainants, v. HONORABLE RUSTICO D. PADERANGA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28, IN MAMBAJAO, CAMIGUIN, Respondent.; A.M. No. RTJ-07-2033 (FORMERLY A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 06-2485-RTJ) - PATRIA PADERANGA DIAZ, Complainant, v. HON. RTC JUDGE RUSTICO D. PADERANGA, AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28, IN MAMBAJAO, CAMIGUIN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 160924, August 05, 2015 - TERELAY INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CECILIA TERESITA J. YULO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213286, August 26, 2015 - MAMERTA LOPEZ CLAUDIO, EDUARDO L. CLAUDIO, ASUNCION CLAUDIO-CONTEGINO, ANA CLAUDIO-ISULAT, DOLORES CLAUDIO-MABINI, AND FERMIN L. CLAUDIO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES FEDERICO AND NORMA SARAZA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200295, August 19, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGAR BOLO Y FRANCO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 209331, August 24, 2015 - DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY HON. CESAR V. PURISIMA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, REPRESENTED BY HON. ROZZANO RUFINO B. BIAZON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Petitioners, v. HON. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, HON. FELICITAS O. LARON-CACANINDIN, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, BRANCH 17, RONNIE C. SILVESTRE, EDWARD P. DELA CUESTA, ROGEL C. GATCHALIAN, IMELDA D.CRUZ, LILIBETH S. SANDAG, RAYMOND P. VENTURA, MA. LIZA S. TORRES, ARNEL C. ALCARAZ, MA. LOURDES V. MANGAOANG, FRANCIS AGUSTIN Y. ERPE, CARLOS T. SO, MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS, CARMELITA M. TALUSAN,1] AREFILES H. CARREON,2] AND ROMALINO G. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 6738, August 12, 2015 - GABRIELA CORONEL, Petitioner, v. ATTY. NELSON A. CUNANAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 170671, August 19, 2015 - FILADELFA T. LAUSA, LORETA T. TORRES, PRIMITIVO TUGOT AND ANACLETO T. CADUHAY, Petitioners, v. MAURICIA QUILATON, RODRIGO Q. TUGOT, PURIFICACION T. CODILLA, TEOFRA T. SADAYA, ESTRELLITA T. GALEOS AND ROSITA T. LOPEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202322, August 19, 2015 - LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. ROMULO S. MENDOZA, FRANCISCO S. MERCADO, ROBERTO M. REYES, EDGARDO CRISTOBAL, JR., AND RODOLFO ROMAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198751, August 19, 2015 - FLOR CAÑAS-MANUEL, Petitioner, v. ANDRES D. EGANO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181111, August 17, 2015 - JACKSON PADIERNOS Y QUEJADA, JACKIE ROXAS Y GERMAN AND ROLANDO MESINA Y JAVATE, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202645, August 05, 2015 - FORTUNATO R. BARON, MANOLO B. BERSABAL, AND RECTO A. MELENDRES, Petitioners, v. EPE TRANSPORT, INC. AND/OR ERNESTO P. ENRIQUEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211263, August 05, 2015 - OKS DESIGNTECH, INC. REPRESENTED BY ZAMBY O. PONGAD, Petitioner, v. MARY JAYNE L. CACCAM, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 175098, August 26, 2015 - ISMAEL V. CRISOSTOMO, Petitioner, v. MARTIN P. VICTORIA, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. CA-15-33-P [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-207-CA-P], August 24, 2015 - TERESITA R. MARIGOMEN, CLERK OF COURT, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, Complainant, v. RONELO G. LABAR, DRIVER, MAILING AND DELIVERY SECTION, COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU STATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 168157, August 19, 2015 - HILARIO P. SORIANO, Petitioner, v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, FLORIZA A. BRIONES, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER II, DONNA B. PASCUAL, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER II, AND ATTY. ADONIS C. CLEOFE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200841-42, August 26, 2015 - CE LUZON GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 171582, August 19, 2015 - ALBERTO T. LASALA, PREVIOUSLY DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE STYLE PSF SECURITY AGENCY, Petitioner, v. THE NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 169343, August 05, 2015 - SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, v. BF HOMES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 166102, August 05, 2015 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE CITY ASSESSOR AND CITY TREASURER OF LUCENA CITY, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. 99-7-01-SC, August 18, 2015 - RE: REQUEST OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICES FOR INCREASE/ADJUSTMENT OF THEIR DECEMBER 1998 PENSIONS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-15-2439 (Formerly: OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3989-RTJ), August 26, 2015 - ARIEL "AGA" MUHLACH, Complainant, v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. ANGELA ACOMPAÑADO-ARROYO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN JOSE CITY, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 169385, August 26, 2015 - TEOFILO GIANGAN, SANTOS BONTIA (DECEASED), AND LIBERATO DUMAIL (DECEASED), Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205722, August 19, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioners, v. LEGAL HEIRS OF JOSE L. AFRICA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 169710, August 19, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE ALBERTO ALBA, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MANUEL C. BLANCO, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 162692, August 26, 2015 - NILO V. CHIPONGIAN, Petitioner, v. VICTORIA BENITEZ-LIRIO, FEODOR BENITEZ AGUILAR, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206032, August 19, 2015 - JOSE RUDY L. BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., AUGUSTEA SHIPMANAGEMENT ITALY, AND/OR CAPTAIN ANTONIO S. NOMBRADO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208354, August 26, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO BACUS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 168258, August 17, 2015 - RICARDO V. QUINTOS, Petitioner, v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181111, August 17, 2015 - JACKSON PADIERNOS Y QUEJADA, JACKIE ROXAS Y GERMAN AND ROLANDO MESINA Y JAVATE, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202645, August 05, 2015 - FORTUNATO R. BARON, MANOLO B. BERSABAL, AND RECTO A. MELENDRES, Petitioners, v. EPE TRANSPORT, INC. AND/OR ERNESTO P. ENRIQUEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175098, August 26, 2015 - ISMAEL V. CRISOSTOMO, Petitioner, v. MARTIN P. VICTORIA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211263, August 05, 2015 - OKS DESIGNTECH, INC. REPRESENTED BY ZAMBY O. PONGAD, Petitioner, v. MARY JAYNE L. CACCAM, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. CA-15-33-P [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-207-CA-P], August 24, 2015 - TERESITA R. MARIGOMEN, CLERK OF COURT, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, Complainant, v. RONELO G. LABAR, DRIVER, MAILING AND DELIVERY SECTION, COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU STATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 168157, August 19, 2015 - HILARIO P. SORIANO, Petitioner, v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, FLORIZA A. BRIONES, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER II, DONNA B. PASCUAL, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER II, AND ATTY. ADONIS C. CLEOFE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200841-42, August 26, 2015 - CE LUZON GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 171582, August 19, 2015 - ALBERTO T. LASALA, PREVIOUSLY DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE STYLE PSF SECURITY AGENCY, Petitioner, v. THE NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 169343, August 05, 2015 - SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, v. BF HOMES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 166102, August 05, 2015 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE CITY ASSESSOR AND CITY TREASURER OF LUCENA CITY, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-15-2439 (Formerly: OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3989-RTJ), August 26, 2015 - ARIEL "AGA" MUHLACH, Complainant, v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. ANGELA ACOMPAÑADO-ARROYO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN JOSE CITY, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 99-7-01-SC, August 18, 2015 - RE: REQUEST OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICES FOR INCREASE/ADJUSTMENT OF THEIR DECEMBER 1998 PENSIONS

  • G.R. No. 169385, August 26, 2015 - TEOFILO GIANGAN, SANTOS BONTIA (DECEASED), AND LIBERATO DUMAIL (DECEASED), Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205722, August 19, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioners, v. LEGAL HEIRS OF JOSE L. AFRICA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 169710, August 19, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE ALBERTO ALBA, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MANUEL C. BLANCO, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 162692, August 26, 2015 - NILO V. CHIPONGIAN, Petitioner, v. VICTORIA BENITEZ-LIRIO, FEODOR BENITEZ AGUILAR, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206032, August 19, 2015 - JOSE RUDY L. BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., AUGUSTEA SHIPMANAGEMENT ITALY, AND/OR CAPTAIN ANTONIO S. NOMBRADO,* Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208354, August 26, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO BACUS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 200751, August 17, 2015 - MONICO LIGTAS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 168258, August 17, 2015 - RICARDO V. QUINTOS, Petitioner, v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215568, August 03, 2015 - RICHARD N. RIVERA, Petitioner, v. GENESIS TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC. AND RIZA A. MOISES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172301, August 19, 2015 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210554, August 05, 2015 - DAVID YU KIMTENG, MARY L. YU, WINNIE L. YU, VIVIAN L. YU, ROSA GAN, LILIAN CHUA WOO YUKIMTENG, SANTOS YU, MARCELO YU, AND SIN CHIAO YU LIM, Petitioners, v. ATTY. WALTER T. YOUNG, ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., ATTY. JOVITO GAMBOL, AND ATTY. DAN REYNALD R. MAGAT, PRACTICING LAW UNDER THE FIRM NAME, YOUNG REVILLA GAMBOL & MAGAT, AND JUDGE OFELIA L. CALO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 211 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANDALUYONG CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 171804, August 05, 2015 - THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL AND THE NATIONAL TREASURER OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners, v. OSCAR ANGLO, SR., AND ANGLO AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY OSCAR ANGLO, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205705, August 05, 2015 - DOMINADOR M. APIQUE, Petitioner, v. EVANGELINE APIQUE FAHNENSTICH, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195990, August 05, 2015 - HEIRS OF RAFAEL GOZO REPRESENTED BY CASTILLO GOZO AND RAFAEL GOZO, JR., Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE UNION MISSION CORPORATION OF THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH (PUMCO), SOUTH PHILIPPINE UNION MISSION OF SDA (SPUMCO) AND SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH AT SIMPAK, LALA, LANAO DEL NORTE REPRESENTED BY BETTY PEREZ , Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 163504, August 05, 2015 - BERLINDA ORIBELLO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER TENTH DIVISION), AND REMEDIOS ORIBELLO, Respondents.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 190984, August 19, 2015 - ACOMARIT ACOMARIT LIMITED, PHILS., AND/OR HONGKONG, Petitioners, v. GOMER L. DOTIMAS, Respondent.

      G.R. No. 190984, August 19, 2015 - ACOMARIT ACOMARIT LIMITED, PHILS., AND/OR HONGKONG, Petitioners, v. GOMER L. DOTIMAS, Respondent.

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    G.R. No. 190984, August 19, 2015

    ACOMARIT ACOMARIT LIMITED, PHILS., AND/OR HONGKONG, Petitioners, v. GOMER L. DOTIMAS, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N

    PERALTA, J.:

    For the Court's resolution is a petition for review on certiorari, dated March 8, 2010, of petitioners Acomarit Phils. and/or Acomarit Hong Kong Limited, assailing the Decision1 and Resolution,2 dated December 12, 2008 and January 20, 2010, respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA) reversing the Resolutions3 dated September 30, 2003 and February 23, 2004 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and ruling that respondent Gomer L. Dotimas suffered from permanent total disability thus entitling him to US$ 60, 000.00.

    The antecedents follow:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    Under a Contract of Employment dated October 27, 1999, respondent Gomer L. Dotimas was employed by ACOMARIT Phils. for its principal and ACOMARIT Hongkong, Limited as Able Seaman on board the vessel "M/V SAUDI RIYADH" for 10 months.4 His Employment Contract5 stated the following terms and conditions:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    Duration of Contract
    :
    10 months
    Position
    :
    Able Seaman
    Basic Monthly Salary
    :
    US$ 410.00/mo.
    Hours of work
    :
    44 hours/week
    Overtime
    :
    US$ 228.00/mo. Fixed overtime
    2.68/hour after 90 hours
    Vacation leave with pay
    :
    6 days/mo.
    Point of hire
    :
    Manila, Philippines

    Respondent was issued a clean bill of health prior to being deployed after he underwent a  medical examination required by the POEA and existing laws.6redarclaw

    On April 26, 2000, while on board and discharging his duties, respondent met an accident which injured his left leg. He was brought to the Rashid Hospital in Dubai where he was given first aid treatment.7 Sometime in May 2000, respondent was repatriated for medical reasons.8redarclaw

    Petitioners referred respondent to its designated physician who recommended that his knee should be operated on.9 Respondent underwent surgery known as Open Reduction and Fixation with Intramedullary Nails.10 After a series of evaluations, on September 21, 2000, Dr. Elenita Torres­ Supan, the attending physician, issued a final evaluation certificate wherein she categorically cleared respondent from his injury and allowed him to resume his work even with implants, which can be removed after a year and a half.11redarclaw

    On May 2, 2001, respondent, through counsel, wrote petitioners, claiming for full disability benefits amounting to US$60,000.00. He claimed that the injury suffered while working for petitioners "will not permit him to work again" as a Seaman which rendered him totally and permanently disabled.12redarclaw

    After his demand went unheeded, respondent filed on July 6, 2001 a Complaint for Disability Benefits and for Moral and Exemplary Damages plus attorney's fees alleging that:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    1. he continues to suffer from the injury which caused his repatriation;
    2. an independent physician had suggested a disability grade of 13 for his injury;
    3. he is suffering from permanent medical unfitness which entitles him to at least US$3,360 up to a maximum of US$60,000; [and]
    4. private respondents failed and unjustifiably refused to pay his disability benefits.13

    Having failed to reach amicable settlement during the mandatory conference, the parties were directed to submit their respective position papers.

    Respondent averred that under the provision of the Labor Code and Supreme Court doctrines, he is entitled to full disability benefits because his injury occurred during his 10-month contract and he is no longer fit for sea services as certified by an independent doctor, and has, as a result lost his earning capacity. He argued that the POEA Contract does not exclude or prohibit an independent physician from giving a disability grading and that the Labor Code concept of disability (loss or diminution of earning power) is not excluded in the interpretation of the provisions of the POEA Contract.14redarclaw

    Furthermore, respondent alleged that although he was pronounced fit to work, he can never be considered fit for employment if he still has im­plants on his leg since he can no longer carry heavy objects while on board a vessel. He claimed that the declaration of fit to work by the company­ designated physician was made out of bias.15redarclaw

    On the other hand, petitioners averred: that respondent is not entitled to any disability benefit as he was declared fit to work by the company­ designated physician; that his fit to work declaration negates his claims for disability benefits; that under the provisions of POEA Standard Employment Contract, respondent's disability can only be assessed by the company­designated physician and such declaration binds the complainant; and, that the company-designated physician is the most qualified to determine the precise condition of respondent's health for having monitored and treated the complainant.16redarclaw

    In a Decision17 dated January 28, 2003, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the petitioners, the dispositive portion of which reads:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, let the instant complaint be, as it is hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED.18

    In ruling that respondent is not entitled to disability benefits, the LA cited the case of German Marine Agencies, Inc. vs. NLRC19 where the Court held that it is the company-designated physician who must proclaim that the seaman suffered a permanent disability whether total or partial due to either injury or illness during the term of the latter's employment, thus, the complainant's claim for permanent partial or permanent total disability must necessary fail.20 The declaration of fitness issued by the physicians who attended to and periodically evaluated the respondent's condition soon after his repatriation from the vessel may not be outweighed by the certification of purported disability issued 10 months after the complainant was certified fit to resume employment.21redarclaw

    Respondent appealed before the NLRC, which affirmed the ruling of the LA and rendered its decision in favor of the petitioners, the dispositive portion of which states:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby or­dered DISMISSED for lack of merit and the assailed decision is hereby ordered AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.22

    In its decision, the NLRC noted that all the evaluation certificates issued by the company-designated physicians were all in order and not biased as to favor petitioners in their findings. The medical evaluation was periodically made and consistent with the diagnosis made on the complai­nant as with continuous improvement on his operated leg.23redarclaw

    Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration on October 31, 2003. However, the NLRC dismissed the motion for not finding any compelling reason to disturb the findings and conclusion thereon.24redarclaw

    Aggrieved, the respondent elevated the matters.to the CA via petition for certiorari. The CA reversed and set aside the twin Resolutions of the NLRC. The dispositive portion of the said decision reads:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed twin Resolutions, dated September 30, 2003 and dated February 23, 2004, of the Public Respondent National Labor Relations Commission, in OFW (M) 01-071332-00, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

    Accordingly, Private Respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay Petitioner permanent total disability benefits of [US$ 60,000.00] at its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment and attorney's fees of ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award at its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment.

    Costs against private respondents.

    SO ORDERED.25

    The subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners was denied in a Resolution dated January 20, 2010.

    Hence, the petitioners filed before this Court the present petition raising the following issues:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    1. Whether the Court of Appeals seriously erred in failing to abide by the express mandate of the governing POEA Contract and jurisprudence which provides that disability benefits are only given to seafarers who suffer disabilities. In this case, respondent was already declared "FIT TO WORK" by the company-designated physician;

    2. Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious, reversible error of law in failing to consider that the findings of the company-designated physician are conclusive in accordance with the ruling of this Honorable Court in several cases; [and]

    3. Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious, reversible error of law in not giving petitioners the opportunity to file any comment to respondent's Petition for Certiorari.26

    This Court finds the present petition partly meritorious.

    A cursory reading of the applicable contractual provisions and a judicious evaluation of the supporting evidence on records, lends strong credence to the contentions and arguments presented by petitioners.

    Petitioners argued that the decision of the CA awarding disability benefits to respondent constitutes grave error and grave abuse of discretion for reason that respondent was already declared "FIT TO WORK" by the company-designated physician. Petitioners alleged that the declaration of fitness by the company-designated physician bars respondent's claim for disability benefits from prospering.27redarclaw

    Petitioners disagreed with the CA's ruling that respondent is suffering from total and permanent disability as he was purportedly unable to work for more than 120 days.28 The CA concluded that as a result of his illness, respondent was clearly shown to be actually unfit to go back to his work as Able Seaman for at least five (5) months or for more than 120 days.29redarclaw

    The CA held that respondent's inability to resume work for more than 120 days, by itself, already constituted permanent total disability. However, we have settled that a seafarer's inability to resume his work after the lapse of more than 120 days from the time he suffered an injury and/or illness is not a magic wand that automatically warrants the grant of total and permanent disability benefits in his favor.30redarclaw

    While it may appear that under the POEA-SEC31 and Labor Code32 the 120-day period is non-extendible and the lapse thereof without the employer making any declaration would be enough to consider the employee permanently disabled, interpreting them in harmony with the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation (AREC)33 indicates otherwise. That if the employer's failure to make a declaration on the fitness or disability of the seafarer is because of the latter's need for further medical attention, the period of temporary and total disability may be extended to a maximum of 240 days.34redarclaw

    We held in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.35 that a temporary total disability becomes permanent when so declared by the company-designated physician within the period allowed, or upon expiration of the maximum 240-day medical treatment period in case of absence of a declaration of fitness or permanent disability.36redarclaw

    In the Vergara case, this Court discussed the significance of the 120- day period as one when the seafarer is considered to be totally yet temporarily disabled, thus, entitling him to sickness wages. This is also the period given to the employer to determine whether the seafarer is fit for sea duty or permanently disabled and the degree of such disability.

    Based on this Court's pronouncements, it is easily discernible that the 120-day or 240-day periods, and the obligations the law imposed on the employer are determinative of when a seafarer's cause. of action for total and permanent disability may be considered to have arisen. Thus, a seafarer may pursue an action for total and permanent disability benefits if:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    (a)
    the company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment would address his temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of the period to 240 days;
    (b)
    240 days had lapsed without any certification being issued by the company-designated physician;
    (c)
    the company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case may be, but his physician of choice and the doctor chosen under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion;
    (d)
    the company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly with his employer, believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as well;
    (e)
    the company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading;
    (f)
    the company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice and the third doctor selected under Section 20- B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and declared him unfit to work;
    (g)
    the company designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and
    (h)
    the company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of the said periods.37

    It is undisputed that after respondent's repatriation sometime in May 2000, he was referred to the company-designated physician who, upon evaluation, recommended that he underwent a surgery. After a series of evaluations, Dr. Torres-Supan, the attending physician, issued a final evaluation certificate on September 21, 2000 wherein she categorically cleared respondent from his injury and declared him fit to resume his work even with implants.

    This Court has observed that the records are devoid of facts about the intervening period from the time that the respondent was declared fit to work and the time he claimed permanent disability benefits. It was never alleged whether respondent attempted to resume his work with the petitioners or applied for work to another company.

    From May 2000 to September 21, 2001, 144 days had lapsed before respondent was declared fit to work. Concededly, said periods have already exceeded the 120-day period under Section 20(B) of the POEA-SEC and Article 192 of the Labor Code. However, records show that respondent underwent a series of evaluations which implied requirement of further medical treatment, thus, justifying the extension of the 120-day period. The company-designated doctor had a period of 240 days within which to make a finding on his fitness for further sea duties or degree of disability.

    When respondent was declared fit to work 144 days from the date of his medical repatriation, he cannot be considered under the state of permanent total disability. Hence, he cannot be said to have acquired a cause of action for total and permanent disability benefits. To stress, the rule is that a temporary total disability only becomes permanent when the company-designated physician, within the 240-day period, declares it to be so, or when after the lapse of the same, he fails to make such declaration. In this case, he was declared fit to work 144 days from the date of his medical repatriation or before the lapse of 240 days.

    Petitioners reiterated that the findings and/or assessments of the company-designated physician are final and form the basis on whether or not respondent can claim for disability benefits as per provisions of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. As the company-designated physician declared him fit, then he should not be awarded disability benefits.38redarclaw

    The claim for sickness and permanent disability benefits arose from the stipulations in the standard format contract of employment pursuant to a circular of the POEA. Such circular was intended for all parties involved in the employment of Filipino seamen on board any ocean-going vessel. The POEA Contract, of which the parties are both signatories, is the law between them and as such, its provisions bind both of them. Thus, the parties are both bound by the provisions of the POEA contract which declares that the degree of disability or fitness to work of a seafarer should be assessed by the company-designated physician.39redarclaw

    The relevant provision of the 1996 POEA Standard Employment Contract states:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

    x x x x

    B. 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:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    x x x x

    3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician hut in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.

    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. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.40

    It was held that a claimant, in submitting himself to examination by the company-designated physician, does not automatically bind himself to the medical report issued by the company-designated physician; neither are the labor tribunals and the courts bound by said medical report. Its inherent merit will be weighed and duly considered. The claimant may dispute the medical report issued by the company-designated physician by seasonably consulting another physician. The medical report issued by said physician will also be evaluated by the labor tribunal and the court based on its inherent merits.41 In this case, respondent failed to dispute the declaration of fit to work by the company-designated physician by not timely consulting another physician.

    Both the LA and the NLRC denied respondent's claim on the ground that he failed to controvert the certification issued by Dr. Torres-Supan that he is fit to work. Respondent took roughly eight months or until May 2, 2001, before disputing the finding of Dr. Torres-Supan by writing the petitioners, through his counsel, for claim for disability benefits. Then, after his demand went unheeded, he challenged the doctor's competency and the correctness of her 'findings when he filed the complaint against the petitioners before the LA on July 6, 2001.42 It is likewise noted from records that his basis of disability was an evaluation made 10 months after he was certified fit to work by the company-designated physician. He presented the certification of Dr. Jocelyn Myra R. Caja on July 20, 2001 suggesting disability grade 13.43redarclaw

    As this Court has settled, it makes no sense to compare the certification of a company-designated physician with that of an employee­ appointed physician if the former is dated seven to eight months earlier than the latter- there would be no basis for comparison at all.44 In this case, the certification of the company-designated physician was ten months earlier than that of the appointed physician of the respondent. Thus, there would be no basis for comparison.

    Nevertheless, this Court finds that respondent is entitled to temporary total disability benefit. Both the company-designated physician and re­spondent's own physician concluded that his left tibia was fractured and that it was healed after the surgery.45 Under the Schedule of Disability or Impediment for Injuries Suffered and Diseases or Illness Contracted in Section 30 of 1996 POEA SEC, the "slight atrophy of calf of leg muscles without apparent shortening or joint lesion or disturbance of weight-bearing line" suffered by respondent has a corresponding Impediment Grade of 13. The Schedule of Disability Allowances in Section 30-A of POEA-SEC provides that:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    Impediment Grade
     
    Impediment
     
    (maximum rate)
    13
    US$ 50,000.00
    X
    6.72%

    Thus, respondent Dotimas is entitled to US$3,360.00 or its equivalent in Philippine currency at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment.

    Lastly, the petitioners argued that the CA committed serious, reversible error of law in not giving them the opportunity to file any comment to respondent's Petition for Certiorari.

    If the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is sufficient in form and substance to justify such process, the court shall issue an order requiring the respondent or respondents to comment on the petition within 10 days from receipt. In petitions before this Court and the CA, the court may require the respondents to file their comment to, and not a motion to dismiss, the peti­tion before giving due course thereto. Thereafter, the court may require the filing of a reply and such other responsive or other pleadings as it may deem necessary and proper.46redarclaw

    It is also provided in the Internal Rules of the CA that in petitions for certiorari, the court may dismiss the petition outright or require the private respondents to file a comment, not a motion to dismiss.47redarclaw

    Contrary to petitioners' claim, records show that the CA issued a Resolution on August 3, 2004, ordering them to file their Comment within 10 days from notice. As per tracer reply of Postmaster Makati City, petitioners received the Resolution on August 9, 2004. On November 18, 2004, it was noted on the records that no comment was filed.48 Thus, the CA ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda within 15 days from notice on November 23, 2004.49redarclaw

    Lastly, in conformity with current policy and pursuant to the case of Nacar v. Gallery Frames,50 we impose on "the monetary award for temporary total disability benefit an interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until full satisfaction.

    WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari, dated March 8, 2010, of petitioners Acomarit Phils. and/or Acomarit Hongkong Limited is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision and Resolution, dated December 12, 2008 and January 20, 2010, respectively, of the Court of Appeals reversing the Resolutions dated September 30, 2003 and February 23, 2004 of the National Labor Relations Commission and ruling that respondent Gomer L. Dotimas suffered from permanent total disability, thus, entitling him to US$60,000.00, are hereby MODIFIED to the effect that petitioners Acomarit Phils. and/or Acomarit Hongkong Limited are ORDERED to pay, jointly and severally, respondent Gomer L. Dotimas the amount of US$3,360.00, or its Peso equivalent at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of actual payment as disability benefits plus the interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until full satisfaction.

    SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

    Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Perez, Perlas-Bernabe, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    * Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per Special Order No.2112 dated July 16, 2015.

    ** Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., per Raffle dated February 11, 2015.

    1 Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring; rollo, pp. 53-62.

    2 Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, with Associate Justices Vicente S. E. Veloso and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring; id at 92-93.

    3 Penned by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino, with Commissioners Victoriano R. Calaycay and Angelita A. Gacutan, concurring.

    4Rollo, p. 54.

    5 CA rollo, p. 41.

    6 Id. at 10.

    7 Supra note 4.

    8 CA rollo, p. ll.

    9 Supra note 4.

    10Rollo, p. 60.

    11 CA rollo p. 35.

    12Supra note 4.

    13Rollo, p. 55.

    14 LA Decision p. 3, CA rollo, p. 49.

    15 CA rollo, p 18.

    16 LA Decision p. 3, id at 49.

    17 Penned by Labor Arbiter Veneranda C. Guerrero, CA rollo pp. 47-53.

    18Rollo, p. 30.

    19 403 Phil. 572, 588 (2001).

    20 LA Decision pp. 5-6, CA rollo, pp. 51-52.

    21 Id.

    22 CA rollo, p. 36.

    23 Id. at 35.

    24 Id. at 39.

    25Rollo, pp. 61-62. (Emphasis omitted)

    26 Id. at 32.

    27 Id. at 32-33.

    28 Id. at 33.

    29 Id. at 60.

    30Millan v. Wallem Matime Services, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 195168, November 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 225, 231.

    31 Section 20. (3.) Upon sign off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall the period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.

    32 Article 192 (c) (1) of the Labor Code provides that:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    Art. 192. Permanent total disability. - x x x

    (c) The following disabilities shall be deemed total and permanent:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    (1) Temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than one hundred twenty days, except as otherwise provided for in the Rules.

    33 Rule X, Sec. 2. Period of Entitlement -(a) The income benefit shall be paid beginning on the first day of such disability. If caused by an injury or sickness it shall not be paid longer than 120 consecu­tive days except where such injury or sickness still requires medical attendance beyond 120 days but not to exceed 240 days from onset of disability in which case benefit for temporary total disability shall be paid.

    However, the System may declare the total and permanent status at any time after 120 days of continuous temporary total disability as may be warranted by the degree of actual loss or impairment of physical or mental functions as determined by the System.

    34C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Lines and Norwegian Sun, and/or Arturo Rocha v. Joel D. Taok, G.R. No. 193679, July 18, 2011, 677 SCRA 296, 314.

    35 588 Phil. 895,913 (2008).

    36 Alpha Ship Management Corporation Calo, G.R. No. 192034, January 13, 2014, 713 SCRA 119, 137.

    37C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Lines and Norwegian Sun and/or Arturo Rocha v. Joel D. Taok, supra note 33.

    38Rollo, p. 37.

    39Magsaysay Maritime Corp. and/or Dela Cruz, et al. v. Velasquez, et al., 591 Phil. 839, 849 (2008)

    40Emphasis supplied.

    41Nazareno v. Maersk Filipinas Crewing Inc., G.R. No. 168703, February 26, 2013, 691 SCRA 630, 639.

    42 NLRC Resolution p. 2, CA rollo, p. 29.

    43 CA rollo, p. 44.

    43 Cadornigara v. National Labor Relations Commision, 563 Phil. 671, 682 (2007).

    45 NLRC Records p. 72; supra note 43.

    46 Rules of Court, Rule 65, Section 6.

    47 1999 INTERNAL RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (IRCA) Rule 7, Section 5. Judicial Action. The Court may dismiss the petition outright or require the private respondents to file a comment, not a motion to dismiss, serving a copy of said comment on petitioner within ten (10) days from notice. Thereafter, the Court may require the filing of a reply within five (5) days from receipt of the comment and such other responsive or other pleadings as it may deem necessary and proper. (Sec. 6, rule 65, RCP)

    48 CA rollo, p. 159.

    49 Id. at 160.

    50 G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439, 459.

    G.R. No. 190984, August 19, 2015 - ACOMARIT ACOMARIT LIMITED, PHILS., AND/OR HONGKONG, Petitioners, v. GOMER L. DOTIMAS, Respondent.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED