Anent the second ground, the CA ruled that the inaccuracy in the affidavit of service was in violation of Section 13, Rule 13 of the same Rules. However, he belatedly filed the same on Augin violation of Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. With respect to the first ground, the CA explained that since petitioner received the VA's JDecision denying his motion for reconsideration on July 12, 2019, he only had until August 7, 2019, reckoned from J(or ten days from July 12, 2019), within which to file the Rule 43 Petition before the CA.
In a Resolution 13 dated September 3, 2019, the CA dismissed the Rule 43 Petition outright citing the following procedural infirmities: ( a) it was filed two (2) days late, and ( b) the affidavit of service was inaccurate, since it stated that the service of the copy of the petition upon the adverse parties was done personally, when in fact it was served through registered mail. 11 On August 9, 2019, petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules (Rule 43 Petition) before the CA. On July 22, 2019, petitioner moved for a twenty (20)-day extension within which to file a petition for review before the CA, or until August 11, 2019. Petitioner, through counsel, received the copy of the order of the denial of the MR on July 12, 2019. 8Īggrieved, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, 9 which was denied in a Resolution 10 dated June 28, 2019.
On the other hand, it found that respondent was able to prove through substantial evidence that it was petitioner who actually refused to be referred to a company-designated physician because he believed that his condition was already cured. Moreover, the VA ruled that petitioner cannot claim medical reimbursement since he failed to submit any evidence of his medical expenses. The VA found that the medical abstract he submitted, which was dated two (2) years from the time of his disembarkation from the vessel, revealed that he sought medical treatment almost a year after such disembarkation, or around August 2017. In a Decision 7 dated February 18, 2019, the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (VA) denied petitioner's claim, rejecting his allegation that respondent asked him to seek medical treatment subject to reimbursement. Moreover, petitioner was not entitled to sickness allowance, damages, and attorney's fees in the absence of bad faith from respondent's end. 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).įor their part, respondent argued that it was petitioner who refused to undergo treatment with the company-designated physician, thereby forfeiting his right to claim disability benefits and sick wages. However, he averred that when he submitted his request for reimbursement, respondent denied the same. Instead, respondent allegedly asked him to seek medical treatment subject to reimbursement. He alleged that respondent did not allow him to report to its Manila office and refused to refer him to a company-designated physician. On November 7, 2016, he reported to respondent's branch office in Iloilo. He arrived in the Philippines on Novemand immediately flew to his hometown in Iloilo. Subsequently, he was given medications, declared unfit for all marine duties, and signed off in Singapore on medical grounds. His X-ray results revealed degenerative change at C5-6 and C6-7 levels. Upon evaluation, he was diagnosed with uncontrolled hypertension. 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. On May 28, 2016, he boarded the vessel and commenced his duties as Second Engineer. (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 I 0, 2016, petitioner was hired by respondent MST Marine Services (Phils.), Inc.
161699, which dismissed his petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court (Rules) due to several procedural infirmities. (petitioner) assailing the Resolutions 2 dated Septemand Maof the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 filed by petitioner Virgilio S.
0 kommentar(er)
