9/15/21, 8:01 PM
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
The NLRC refused to rule on the disability claim of respondent finding that the CBA
remained effective as pursuant to its provisions, the absence of prior notice of its
termination extends its period of coverage beyond January 31, 2010. Following the
CBA, the NLRC held that the respondent's complaint is dismissible pending result of the
National Board Industrial Industries (NBII) under the Danish Industrial Injuries Act
(DIIA). This however does not deprive the respondent of the right to proceed against
the petitioner in accordance with the POEA-SEC, but the remedy should be after the
claim under the Danish Act is settled.[19]
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC Decision but the same was
denied by the NLRC in its October 31, 2014 Resolution.[20] In the said Resolution, the
NLRC added that the "setting off" provision under the CBA means that it is the award
under Danish law that should be deducted from the amount respondent is found to be
entitled under the POEA-SEC.[21]
Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA alleging that the NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint on the ground that it is
premature, and in not awarding damages and attorney's fees.[22]
On July 13, 2016, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision[23] which granted the
petition for certiorari filed by respondent, the fallo of which reads:
FOR THESE REASONS, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed
Decision dated 29 August 2014 and Resolution dated 31 October 2014
rendered by the Fifth Division of the NLRC in NLRC LAC No. OFW-M-04000315-14 (NLRC NCR Case No. (M) 06-09042-13) are ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 21 February 2014 is hereby
REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.[24]
The CA agreed with the findings of the LA that the CBA remained effective at the time
relevant to the respondent's disability claims. It also affirmed the LA's findings that
respondent's disability lapsed into a total and permanent disability on account of the
failure of the company-designated physician to render a final and definitive assessment
within the required 240- day period. Similarly owing to such failure, the CA held that
"the third-doctor-referral provision did not find application.[25]
Finally, with respect to the disability claim filed before the NBII, the CA noted that the
NBII had already rendered its Decision granting the respondent of disability benefits
and loss of earning capacity. In this light, there is no need to refile the complaint as the
NLRC ruled. The amount awarded by the NBII shall be offset against the amount
adjudged by the LA.[26]
Petitioners sought reconsideration of the July 13, 2016 Decision, but the CA denied in
its Resolution[27] dated January 11, 2017.
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioners attribute the following errors
committed by the CA:
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/67062
3/10