4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly filing his comment, however, Nazal petitioned[15] the CA to convert his “disability to permanent total disability” (G.R. No. SP No. 104246). This prompted the petitioners to file a “motion for leave to file manifestation and admission of manifestation”[16] in relation with the petition for conversion. The petitioners submitted a brief chronology of events showing that Nazal appeared to be “forum shopping” with the filing of the petition with the CA, subsequent to the filing of the present case. The CA, for its part, promptly dismissed the petition. By a Resolution dated June 22, 2009,[17] the Court granted the petitioners’ motion and required Nazal to comment. Nazal submitted his comment on the motion on July 23, 2009[18] under his own signature. It appeared that he no longer had legal representation at the time. He informed the Court in this respect that he sought the help of RODCO Consultancy and Maritime Services Corporation (RODCO) for legal and financial assisstance regarding his claim for disability benefits. RODCO provided Nazal with a lawyer – under contract with the firm for one year – in the person of Atty. Oliver C. Castro. Atty. Castro’s contract with RODCO expired on February 13, 2005, prompting him to withdraw as Nazal’s counsel; RODCO then sent Attys. Constantino Reyes and Rodrigo Ceniza to represent Nazal. They were also under contract with RODCO and their sevices were terminated as of July 2007, around which time, the partial disability award to Nazal was enforced,[19] as evidenced by a notice of garnishment[20] and acknowledgment receipt by the NLRC of the garnished amount. [21] Nazal contends in the same comment that he is entitled not only to partial disability benefits but to permanent total disability compensation since he had already lost the capacity to earn a living. This is the reason, he tells the Court, why even without a counsel, he petitioned the CA for the conversion of his disability to permanent total disability. He submits that his receipt of the amount of P484,046.31, corresponding to the award of partial disability benefits, does not bar him from demanding what is legally due him and that it cannot be considered as forum shopping. In a Resolution dated August 17, 2009,[22] the Court noted Nazal’s comment on the forum shopping issue. Nazal died in October 2010,[23] without any comment on the petitioners’ appeal having been filed. Our Ruling The procedural issue We first resolve the procedural issue of whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for having been filed out of time. Obviously, the appellate court counted the 60-day period for the filing of the petition[24] from March 13, 2006,[25] the date the petitioners claimed they received a copy of the NLRC resolution (dated November 30, 2005) denying their partial motion for reconsideration (first motion) and not from November 15, 2006,[26] the day they received the NLRC resolution (dated October 31, 2006) denying their urgent motion for reconsideration (second motion). elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55870 4/9