5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In view of which POEA Memorandum Circular No. 11, series of 2000, issued on 12 September 2000 enforcing the Temporary restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court in a Resolution dated 11 September 2000, on the implementation of the abovementioned provision is hereby Rescinded. xxxx [50] Cootauco v. MMS Phil. Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 184722, March 15, 2010, 615 SCRA 529, 544. [51] G.R. No. 172086, December 3, 2012, 686 SCRA 676. [52] Id. at 684-685. [53] Rollo, p. 275. Statement of 2nd Engineer Alexander Pynikov dated December 7, 2000. [54] Rollo, p. 407. [55] Id. at 324-332. [56] Id. at 740. [57] Id. at 95-96. [58] See CA Decision, rollo, p. 109. [59] See Progress Homes v. NLRC, 336 Phil. 265, 270 (1997). [60] Yu v. Hon. Reyes-Carpio, GR. No. I89207, June I5, 20 II, 652 SCRA 34I, 348. (Citations omitted) CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BRION, J.: I concur with the ponencia 's conclusion that Alexander L. Moradas' complaint for total and permanent disability benefits must be dismissed and consequently, the Court of Appeals (CA) ruling must be reversed and set aside. However, I strongly disagree with the legal framework of review it adopted in arriving at this conclusion. Due to its adoption of an erroneous framework of review, its basis for reversing the assailed CA ruling is necessarily tainted with serious legal error. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56605 12/31