Case Digest (G.R. No. 223290)
Facts:
Woodrow B. Camaso v. TSM Shipping (Phils), Inc., Utkilen, and/or Jones Tulod, G.R. No. 223290, November 07, 2016, the Supreme Court First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Woodrow B. Camaso (Camaso) alleged he entered into an employment contract on July 15, 2014 with respondents TSM Shipping (Phils), Inc., Utkilen, and Jones Tulod to serve as Second Mate aboard the vessel M/V Golfstraum for six months at a monthly salary of US$1,178; he boarded the vessel on October 18, 2014 and claimed prior service with respondents. While aboard and earlier, Camaso developed tonsillar cancer requiring repatriation, chemotherapy and radiation; respondents initially paid for his treatment and sickwage allowances but later refused further medical expenses, prompting Camaso to sue for disability benefits, sickwage allowance, reimbursement of medical expenses and consequential damages before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) as NLRC Case No. OFW (M) 07-09270-14.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in Camaso’s favor in a Decision dated November 28, 2014, awarding total and permanent disability benefits of US$60,000 plus attorney’s fees but dismissing other monetary claims. On appeal, the NLRC promulgated a Decision dated March 19, 2015 reversing the LA and dismissing the complaint; a subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by NLRC Resolution dated April 28, 2015. Camaso then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA dismissed Camaso’s petition in a Resolution dated August 12, 2015 for non-payment of required docket fees under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. Camaso filed a motion for reconsideration arguing a check for the docket fees had been attached to the petition and that the Division Clerk admitted it was overlooked. The CA, however, denied the motion in a Resolution dated March 4, 2016, accepting the Receiving Section Officer-in-Charge’s statement that no payment was attached when filed and further holding that, even if a check had been stapled to the petition, a personal check (a Metrobank check dated July 6, 2015 under Pedro L. Linsangan’s account) was not an authorized mode of payment under Section 6...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly dismiss Camaso’s petition for certiorari for nonpayment of docket fees?
- Does the attachment of a personal check to the petition and the surrounding circumstances justify relaxing the rule on docket fee payment and permit reinstatement/remand for reso...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)