6/14/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
North Sea elevated the case before the CA questioning the financial assistance awarded
to petitioners. On the other hand, in their Comment,[19] herein petitioners did not only
sought the reversal of the Decision[20] of the Panel of VAs but also claimed to be
entitled to the death benefit provided for under the CBA amounting to US$98,948.00.
[21]
In its now assailed Decision,[22] the CA did not give due course to the reliefs prayed for
by petitioners in their Comment considering that they failed to appeal the Decision and
the Resolution[23] of the Panel of VAs. No modification of judgment could be granted to
a party who did not appeal.[24]
The CA affirmed the findings of the Panel of VAs but equitably reduced the award of
financial assistance from US$20,000.00 to US$8,500.00. The CA opined that the
Supreme Court has granted financial assistance to separated employees for
humanitarian considerations. Considering that Amadeo has worked for respondents for
several years and was often re-hired due to his excellent performance and work
attitude, the award of financial assistance to his heirs is proper. The amount of
US$8,500.00 is based on petitioners' allegations in their Position Paper[25] that North
Sea offered such amount as financial assistance in a conference before the Panel of VAs
on January 25, 2017.[26]
As petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration[27] was likewise denied by the CA in its
Resolution[28] dated January 23, 2019, they now come to the Court through this
Petition for Review on Certiorari, submitting the following assignments of error
allegedly committed by the CA:
9.1. CONTRARY TO LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND FAIR
PLAY, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THAT
THE NOW DECEASED SEAFARER IS ONLY ENTITLED TO FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE.
9.2. CONTRARY TO LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND FAIR
PLAY, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO ACCOUNT
RESPONDENTS AND THEIR COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN FOR THEIR
FAILURE TO FURNISH PETITIONER A COPY OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT OF
THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN AT THE DISCONTINUATION OF HIS
MEDICAL TREATMENT, DESPITE REQUESTS.
9.3. CONTRARY TO LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE, THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS FAILED TO ACCOUNT RESPONDENTS FOR THEIR FAILURE AND
REFUSAL TO REFER PETITIONER FOR A THIRD DOCTOR REFERRAL DESPITE
THE LATTER'S INITIATIVE.
9.4. CONTRARY TO LAW AND CURRENT JURISPRUDENCE, THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT SUFFER
FROM TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY.
9.5. CONTRARY TO LAW AND CURRENT JURISPRUDENCE, THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66644
3/7