Case Digest (G.R. No. 225142)
Facts:
NYK-Fil Ship Management, Incorporated v. Gener G. Dabu, G.R. No. 225142, September 13, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc., acting for its foreign principal, hired respondent Gener G. Dabu as an oiler under a nine-month contract covered by the IBF JSU/AMOSUP-IMMAJ CBA (Jan. 1, 2012–Dec. 31, 2014). Respondent disclosed diabetes mellitus during his pre-employment medical exam (March 25, 2013) but nevertheless embarked the vessel on April 6, 2013; he experienced symptoms aboard, was examined abroad and declared unfit for sea duty, and was repatriated to Manila on April 12, 2013.
After repatriation respondent was examined by the company-designated physician whose tests showed poorly controlled diabetes; the company physician twice declared the condition not work-related but continued treatment for up to 130 days. Specialist physicians in the Philippines subsequently declared respondent permanently unfit for sea service and that his illness was work-aggravated/related; respondent then sought disability benefits, damages and attorney’s fees from petitioner but was denied and the grievance under the CBA did not settle.
Respondent filed a notice to arbitrate before the NCMB – Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA). On November 28, 2014 the PVA rendered a decision ordering respondents to pay complainant disability compensation (US$60,000 plus 12% interest) and attorney’s fees (10% of the award). Petitioner received the PVA decision on February 9, 2015 and filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals (CA) on February 24, 2015, alleging serious errors by the PVA; respondent filed comment and the parties submitted memoranda.
Meanwhile the NCMB-PVA issued a Writ of Execution on April 27, 2015 which petitioner complied with without prejudice to its CA petition. The CA initially issued a decision on September 15, 2015 granting petitioner’s Rule 43 petition and reversing the PVA. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration alleging the petition was filed out of time. On March 3, 2016 the CA issued an Amended Decision granting respondent’s motion for reconsideration, recalling and setting aside its September 15, 2015 decision and dismissing the petition as having been filed out of time; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Amended Decision was denied in a June 9, 2016 Resolution.
Petitioner brought a petition for review on certiorari...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s petition for review to the Court of Appeals filed within the reglementary period so that the CA had jurisdiction to entertain it?
- If the petition was filed late, did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in dismissing the petition and vacating its earlier decision that h...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)