6/8/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
On August 18, 1998, the NLRC rendered a Resolution[13] which affirmed in toto the LA
decision.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied in a Resolution[14] dated
December 8, 1999.
Petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the NLRC
resolutions for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. Respondent filed his
Comment, while the petitioner its Rejoinder thereto.
In a Decision dated November 28, 2001, the CA denied the petition and affirmed the
NLRC resolutions.
The CA found that respondent through the NBI autopsy report and the certification
issued by the medico-legal officer, Dr. Reyes, was able to prove that Danilo died of
Asphyxia by strangulation, thus, the burden was shifted to petitioner to prove that
Danilo committed suicide. However, petitioner failed to do so since its evidence
consisted merely of a photocopy of the fax transmission of the alleged Englishtranslated medical report of Dr. Hameed; and such report cannot be verified as to its
genuineness and due execution in our jurisdiction.
Therefore, as between the
independent report of the NBI and the mere photocopy of the alleged medical report of
Dr. Hameed, the former therefore prevailed and should be given full credence.
The CA did not also give much credence to the written report dated September 21,
1994 of Danilo's fellow crew members since the circumstances stated in the report did
not at all prove that Danilo committed suicide.
The CA brushed aside petitioner's claim that respondent failed to prove that he is
related to Danilo. It found that petitioner had admitted in its Answer to the Complaint
that respondent is a brother of Danilo; and that the issue that respondent is not related
to Danilo was only raised for the first time in the CA.
Hence, this petition wherein petitioner raises the following assignment of errors, to wit:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY [ERRED] WHEN IT
TOTALLY DISREGARDED THE MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE REPORT OF THE
SAUDI ARABIAN DOCTOR WHO CONDUCTED AN ACTUAL EXAMINATION OF
THE CADAVER AND OCULAR INSPECTION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE
DECEASED WAS FOUND ON THE LAME [EXCUSE] THAT THE SAME WERE
MERE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE FAX TRANSMISSIONS FROM THE
PETITIONER'S FOREIGN PRINCIPAL.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT MADE A FACTUAL
CONCLUSION THAT IS NOT BORNE OUT BY THE RECORD BUT GROUNDED
ENTIRELY ON SPECULATIONS, SURMISES OR CONJECTURE.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/40027
3/8