7/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly SECOND DIVISION [ G.R. No. 252914, November 09, 2020 ] VIRGILIO S. SUELO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. MST MARINE SERVICES (PHILS.), INC., THOME SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD., AND ERNANDO A. RODIO, RESPONDENTS. DECISION PEARLS-BERNABE, J .: Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1] filed by petitioner Virgilio S. Suelo, Jr. (petitioner) assailing the Resolutions[2] dated September 3, 2019 and March 6, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA ­G.R. SP No. 161699, which dismissed his petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court (Rules) due to several procedural infirmities. The Facts On May I 0, 2016, petitioner was hired by respondent MST Marine Services (Phils.), Inc. (respondent) as Second Engineer for a six (6)-month contract on board the vessel "Janesia Asphalt V," with a basic monthly package of $1,551.00 as salary, $1,155.00 as overtime pay, and $466.00 vacation leave pay, among others. On May 28, 2016, he boarded the vessel and commenced his duties as Second Engineer.[3] On October 29, 2016, he was brought to Singapore General Hospital due to severe headache, slurring of speech, neck pain, and a recent history of loss of consciousness. Upon evaluation, he was diagnosed with uncontrolled hypertension. His X-ray results revealed degenerative change at C5-6 and C6-7 levels. Subsequently, he was given medications, declared unfit for all marine duties, and signed off in Singapore on medical grounds. He arrived in the Philippines on November 4, 2016 and immediately flew to his hometown in Iloilo.[4] On November 7, 2016, he reported to respondent's branch office in Iloilo. He alleged that respondent did not allow him to report to its Manila office and refused to refer him to a company-designated physician. Instead, respondent allegedly asked him to seek medical treatment subject to reimbursement. However, he averred that when he submitted his request for reimbursement, respondent denied the same.[5] Accordingly, he filed a complaint for permanent and total disability benefits, damages, and attorney's fees before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). For their part, respondent argued that it was petitioner who refused to undergo treatment with the company-designated physician, thereby forfeiting his right to claim https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66765 1/6

Select target paragraph3