22-NYK-Fil Ship Management v. Dabu

NYK-FIL SHIP MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED,
Petitioner, v. GENER G.
DABU, Respondent.
G.R. No. 225142, September 13, 2017
FACTS
Petitioner NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc., a local manning agent acting for and in
behalf of its foreign principal NYK Ship Management Pte. Ltd. Singapore, hired respondent
Dabu to work as oiler for nine months. Their contract of employment was covered by a CBA
which was effective from 2012 to 2014
Respondent underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) on March 25, 2013

where he disclosed that he has diabetes mellitus.
On April 2013, he embarked the vessel as on oiler, thereafter he experienced palpitations,

body pain and numbness of hands and legs and lack of sleep. He consulted a doctor in Sri
Lanka and found him to be unfit for sea duty. On his arrival, he had several tests and
prescribed treatment.
On July 2013, company physician declared that his diabetes is not work related and his
treatment continued. Respondent then consulted Dr. Vicaldo and declared him
permanently unfit for sea duty. Other consultations resulted in the same declaration.
Respondent sought payment of disability benefits, damages and attorney's fees from
petitioner, but was denied. He requested for a grievance proceedings in accordance with
the CBA, however, the parties did not reach any settlement. He then filed a notice to
arbitrate with the National Conciliation Mediation Board (NCMB), and the parties were
required to submit their position papers.
On November 2014, NCMB-PVA rendered a decision that ordered NYK to pay disability
compensation in amount of $60,000 or its equivalent plus attorney’s fees.
Petitioner received a copy of the PVA decision on February 9, 2015 and filed with the CA a
petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court on February 24, 2015 alleging that
the PVA committed serious errors in rendering its decision and sought to enjoin the PVA
from enforcing its decision. Respondent filed its Comment and petitioner filed its Reply.
The parties also filed their respective memoranda.
On April 27, 2015, the NCMB-PVA issued a Writ of Execution directing the satisfaction of
the judgment award of the PVA, which petitioner had complied without prejudice to the
outcome of their petition for review.
NYK appealed to the CA and decision was reversed. Respondent appealed and the NCMB-
PVA was reinstated. Peitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied by reason of
having been filed out of time.
ISSUE
W/N the CA committed reversible and gross error in amending the judgment and
dismissing petitioner’s appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time.
RULING
NO. SC finds no merit in the petition.
Despite Rule 43 providing for a 15-day period to appeal, we rule that the Voluntary
Arbitrator's decision must be appealed before the Court of Appeals within 10
calendar days from receipt of the decision as provided in the Labor Code.
We ruled that Article 262-A of the Labor Code allows the appeal of decisions
rendered by Voluntary Arbitrators. Statute provides that the Voluntary Arbitrator's
decision "shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the
copy of the award or decision by the parties." Being provided in the statute, this 10-
day period must be complied with; otherwise, no appellate court will have
jurisdiction over the appeal. This absurd situation occurs when the decision is
appealed on the 11th to 15th day from receipt as allowed under the Rules, but which
decision, under the law, has already become final and executory.
To stress, Article 262-A of the Labor Code provides for a period of ten (10) days to appeal
the PVA's decision. The 10-day period to appeal under the Labor Code being a substantive
right cannot be diminished, increased, or modified through the Rules of Court. 27 The
PHILEC decision merely applies what is stated in the existing law.
In fact, as correctly pointed out by the CA, in Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., Sales Force
Union -PTGWO-Balais v. Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., 28 (Coca Cola) a 2005 case, we
had already affirmed the CA's dismissal of the petition filed with it on the ground that the
appeal of the PVA decision was not filed within the 10 day period so that the PVA decision
had already attained finality. While there are decisions subsequent to the Coca Cola case
stating that a petition for review assailing the PVA decision must be filed within 15 days
from receipt of the PVA decision, however, we reiterate in the PHILEC decision, which is
the recent decision, that the voluntary arbitrator's decision must be appealed before the CA
within 10 calendar days from receipt of the decision as provided in the Labor Code. It bears
stressing that the PHILEC case was decided on December 10, 2014, while the petition was
filed with the CA only on February 24, 2014, consequently, the PHILEC decision applies to
the instant case.

22-NYK-Fil Ship Management v. Dabu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

22-NYK-Fil Ship Management v. Dabu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

22-NYK-Fil Ship Management v. Dabu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NYK-FIL SHIP MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED,

G.R. No. 225142, September 13, 2017

Respondent underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) on March 25, 2013

On April 2013, he embarked the vessel as on oiler, thereafter he experienced palpitations,

NO. SC finds no merit in the petition.

You might also like