J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0067: MARCELINO T. TAMIN VS. MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION AND/OR MASTERBULK PTE. LTD. (G.R. 220608, 31 AUGUST 2016, VELASCO, JR., J.) (SUBJECT/S: CLAIMS FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS; THE 120/240 RULE; WHAT IS  PERMANENT DISABILITY; WHAT IS TOTAL DISABILITY) (BRIEF TITLE: TAMIN VS MAGSAYSAY MARITIME ET AL).

 
DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The June 25, 2015 Decision and September 18, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 137055 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision of the Panel of . Voluntary Arbitrators in AC-305-NCMB-NCR-001-01-01-2014 is hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

THERE IS A RULE THAT IN CASE OF CLAIM FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS THE COMPANY PHYSICIAN MUST ISSUE A REPORT WITHIN 120 DAYS EXTENDIBLE TO 240 DAYS. IN THIS CASE THIS RULE WAS NOT FOLLOWED. RESPONDENTS ARGUE THAT THIS RULE DOES NOT APPLY ANYMORE BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS OF THE NEW POEA-SEC PROVIDES THAT DISABILITY IS NOT DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF DURATION OF INABILITY TO WORK BUT ON DISABILITY GRADINGS ALONE. IS THIS ARGUMENT CORRECT?

 NO. IT MUST BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE THE MEDICAL ASSESSMENT OR REPORT OF THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN WAS COMPLETE, VALID  AND ISSUED ON TIME WHICH IS WITHIN 120 DAYS EXTENDIBLE TO 240 DAYS. IN THIS CASE THE REPORT OF THE COMPANY PHYSICIAN WAS NOT ISSUED WITHIN THE LIMIT OF 240 DAYS.

JURISPRUDENCE IS REPLETE WITH CASES WHERE THE COURT  STRUCK DOWN A COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN’S DISABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR BEING BELATEDLY ISSUED, INSUFFICIENT, OR DUE TO LACK OF FINALITY.

BUT THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE POEA-SEC PROVISIONS?

THE POEA-SEC PROVISIONS MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS ON DISABILITY OF THE LABOR CODE, AND THE AMENDED RULES ON EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION (AREC) IMPLEMENTING TITLE II, BOOK IV OF THE LABOR CODE.

WHAT IS PERMANENT DISABILITY?

PERMANENT DISABILITY IS THE INABILITY OF A WORKER TO PERFORM HIS OR HER JOB FOR MORE THAN 120 DAYS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT A WORKER LOSES THE USE OF ANY PART OF HIS OR HER BODY.

WHAT IS TOTAL DISABILITY?

TOTAL DISABILITY, ON THE OTHER HAND, MEANS THE DISABLEMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE TO EARN WAGES IN THE SAME KIND OF WORK OR WORK OF SIMILAR NATURE THAT HE OR SHE WAS TRAINED FOR, OR ACCUSTOMED TO PERFORM, OR ANY KIND OF WORK WHICH A PERSON OF HIS OR HER MENTALITY AND ATTAINMENTS COULD DO.29

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

scd-2016-0067-marcelino-t-tamin

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0066: TEODORO B. CRUZ, JR., COMPLAINANT -VERSUS – ATTYS. JOHN G. REYES, ROQUE BELLO AND CARMENCITA A. ROUS-GONZAGA, RESPONDENTS. (A.C. NO. 9090, 31 AUG 2016, PEREZ, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: CRUZ VS. ATTY. REYES ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Resolution of the Court dated 22 August 2012 is hereby modified in that respondent Atty. John G. Reyes is REPRIMANDED for his failure to exercise the necessary prudence required in the practice of the legal profession. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

The foregoing notwithstanding, it cannot be said that respondent has no liability at all under the circumstances. His folly, though, consists in his negligence in accepting the subject cases without first being fully apprised of and evaluating the circumstances surrounding them. We, nevertheless, agree with respondent that such negligence is not of contumacious proportions as to warrant the imposition of the penalty of suspension. This Court finds the penalty of suspension for one ( 1) year earlier imposed on respondent too harsh and not proportionate to the offense committed. “The power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment or suspension be imposed as a penalty.”42 The penalty to be meted out on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion taking into consideration the facts surrounding each case.43

In this connection, the following circumstances should be taken into consideration in order to mitigate respondent’s responsibility: first respondent exhibited enough candor to admit that he was negligent and remiss in his duties as a lawyer when he accommodated the request of another lawyer to handle a case without being first apprised of the details and acquainted with the circumstances relative thereto; and second, since this is his first offense, respondent “is entitled to some measure of forbearance. “44

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

scd-2016-0066-atty-john-g-reyes

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0065: JO-ANN DIAZ-SALGADO AND HUSBAND DR. GERARD C. SALGADO – VERSUS – LUIS G. ANSON  (G.R. NO. 204494, 27 JULY 2016, REYES, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: SALGADO VS ANSON)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 6, 2012 and the Resolution dated November 26, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 92989 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint filed in Civil Case No. 69611 is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

All things considered, the Court holds that although a certification of no record of marriage license or certification of “due search and inability to find” a record or entry issued by the local civil registrar is adequate to prove the non-issuance of the license,93 such certification is not the only proof that could validate the absence of a marriage license.

In this case, the categorical statement on Luis and Severina’s marriage contract that no marriage license was exhibited to the solemnizing officer, coupled with a contrived averment therein that the marriage is of an exceptional character under Article 77 of the Civil Code, are circumstances which cannot be disregarded.

Incidentally, it may be well to note that Luis’ failure to assert his marriage to Severina during the latter’s lifetime is suspect. Luis left for the USA in 1981, and until Severina’ s death in 2002, he never saw, much less reconciled with her.94 All those years, he never presented himself to be the husband of Severina. Not even their daughter, Maria Luisa, knew of the marriage. During trial, he never presented any other witness to the marriage. He contends that his marriage to Severina was valid and subsisting, yet he knowingly contracted a subsequent marriage abroad. Verily, Luis failed to prove the validity of their marriage based on the evidence he himself had presented.

“The solemnization of a marriage without prior license is a clear violation of the law and would lead or could be used, at least, for the perpetration of fraud against innocent and unwary parties, which was one of the evils that the law sought to prevent by making a prior license a prerequisite for a valid marriage. The protection of marriage as a sacred institution requires not just the defense of a true and genuine union but the exposure of an invalid one as well. “95

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 scd-2016-0065-salgado

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.