6/5/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
the subsequent lack of a categorical assessment of petitioner’s disability as
demonstrative of the uncertainty and extent thereof, the Labor Arbiter rejected the
earlier assessment made by the company-designated physician.
On appeal, the Labor Arbiter’s decision was affirmed in toto in the 30 March 2009
Resolution issued by the Second Division of the NLRC in OFW (L) 03-04372-08 (LAC
No. 12-000962-08).[15] With the denial of their motion for reconsideration in the 15
July 2009 Resolution issued in the same case,[16] respondents filed the Rule 65 petition
for certiorari docketed before the CA as CA-G.R. SP No. 110492. On 30 November
2010, the CA’s Special Twelfth Division rendered the herein assailed decision modifying
the NLRC’s resolutions by deleting the grant of permanent disability benefits in favor of
petitioner and, in lieu thereof, awarding US$8,000.00 as temporary total disability
benefits. Finding that the subject disability had not lasted beyond the 240 days within
which employers are mandated to assess the former’s disability in the event that the
same extends beyond the initial 120 day period provided under the law, the CA ruled
that petitioner was only entitled to an award of temporary total disability benefits,[17]
computed in the following wise:
No. of
months
=150 days/30 days
incapacitated
=5 months
Disability
=US$1,600.00 x 5 months
benefits
= US$8,000.00[18]
Aggrieved by the foregoing decision and the CA’s 14 March 2011 denial of his motion
for reconsideration,[19] petitioner filed the instant petition within the reglementary
period.
The Issues
In seeking the reinstatement of the rulings handed down by the Labor Arbiter and the
NLRC, petitioner presents the following issues for resolution:
1. Whether or not petitioner is permanently and totally incapacitated to
resume sea duties as would entitle him to the full disability benefits
adjudicated by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.
2. Whether or not the assessment made by the company-designated
physician could be given credence.
3. Whether or not the CA erred in finding petitioner entitled only to
temporary total disability benefits.
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds the petition bereft of merit.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62366
3/9