DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Resolution dated September 3, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 136807 is SET ASIDE. Respondents Senator Crewing (MANILA), Inc., et al. are ORDERED to pay petitioner Dino S. Palo:

1) US$60,000.00 representing permanent and total disability benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract;

2) Sickness allowance, if none had been paid; and 3) Attorney’s fees at ten percent (10%) of the monetary award. All amounts shall earn six percent ( 6%) interest per annum from finality of this Decision until full satisfaction. 63 64 65

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THIS INVOLVES A CLAIM BY A SEAMAN FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS. HE DID NOT RECEIVE A COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMPANY DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN. FOR LACK OF SUCH NOTICE HE WAS DECLARED ENTITLED TO SAID BENEFITS.

WHAT ARE SOME IMPORTANT  REQUIREMENTS TO CLAIM FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS?

AS A RULE, AWARD OF DISABILITY BENEFITS SHALL BE BASED FROM THE COMPANY-DESGINATED PHYSICIAN’S FINAL ASSESSMENT. AND THE COMPANY[1]DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN IS MANDATED TO ISSUE A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE, WHICH SHOULD BE PERSONALLY RECEIVED BY THE SEAFARER.

On that note, We now determine whether or not Palo is entitled to payment of full disability benefits. As a rule, award of disability benefits shall be based from the company-desginated physician’s final assessment. Section 20(B)49 of the POEA-SEC provides that, to constitute a final assessment, a company designated physician’s assessment should declare a seafarer fit to work or the degree of his disability. Further defined, a final, conclusive and definite assessment must clearly state whether the seafarer is fit to work or the exact disability rating, or whether such illness is work-related, and without any further condition or treatment.50 It should no longer require any further action on the part of the company-designated physician and it is issued by the company-designated physician after he or she has exhausted all possible treatment options within the periods mandated by law. 51 Relatedly, this final assessment shall be issued within 120 days from the date of the seafarer’s medical repatriation or within 240 days, if supported with justification for extension of medical treatment. 52 Failure to issue a final assessment within the foregoing periods renders a seafarer’s illness or injury permanent and total regardless of justification. 53

Moreover, this Court cannot emphasize enough that the company[1]designated physician is mandated to issue a medical certificate, which should be personally received by the seafarer, or, if not practicable, sent to him/her by any other means sanctioned by present rules.54 The seafarer must be fully and properly informed of his medical condition.55 The results of his/her medical exmninations, the treatments extended to him/her, the diagnosis and prognosis, if needed, and, of course, his/her disability grading must be fully explained to him/her by no less than the company-designated physician.56 The seafarer must be accorded proper notice and due process especially where his/her well-being is at stake.57 The effect of failure of the company to furnish the seafarer a copy of his medical certificate militates gravely against the company’s cause.58

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

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

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The September 30, 2013 Decision and June 2, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 98861 are AFFIRMED.

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

A DEED OF DONATION OVER A PARCEL OF LAND APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED. BUT ONE OF THE SIGNATORIES WAS DEAD 36 YEARS EALIER. THE DEED OF DONATION WAS THEREFORE VOID.

Here, respondents successfully refuted said presumption of regularity. Rodriguez, the notary public, testified that all the parties personally appeared before him when the Deed of Donation was notarized. Interestingly, Eufrosina, the wife of Valentin and one of the signatories in the Deed, died in 1958, or 36 years before the Deed of Donation was executed. It is worthy to note that Isidro, one of the petitioners, admitted his mother’s demise during the trial.

Thus, Eufrosina could not have personally appeared before the notary public unless by some miracle she had risen from her grave to sign the Deed of Donation. The only plausible conclusion is that another person stood in her place, and that the notary public did not duly ascertain if the person who signed the Deed of Donation was actually Eufrosina.

WHAT HAPPENED NOW TO THE VOID DEED OF DONATION?

IT IS SUBJECT TO ATTACK AT ANY TIME. AN ACTION TO DECLARE THE EXISTENCE OF A VOID CONTRACT DOES NOT PRESCRIBE.

The Deed of Donation is an absolute nullity hence it is subject to attack at any time. Its defect, i. e., the absence of consent of respondents, is permanent and incurable by ratification or prescription.67 In other words, the action is imprescriptible. This is in accord with Article 1410 of the Civil Code which states that an action to declare the inexistence of a void contract does not prescribe.68

WHAT HAPPENED NOW TO THE LAND, SUBJECT OF THE DEED OF DONATION.

THE LAND IS HELD BY PETITIONERS IN TRUST FOR RESPONDENTS WHO ARE THE REAL OWNERS. RESPONDENTS CAN INSTITUTE A CASE AGAINST PETITIONERS FOR RECONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTY ANYTIME.

Since the Deed of Donation is void ab initio due to the illegality in its execution, the disputed land is deemed to be simply held by petitioners in trust for respondents who are the real owners.69 Respondents therefore have the right to institute a case against petitioners for the reconveyance of the property at any time. 70 The well-settled rule is that “[a]s long as the land wrongfully registered under the Torrens system is still in the name of the person who caused such registration, an action in p ersonam will lie to compel him to reconvey the property to the real owner. ” 71

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

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

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED IN PART. The July 12, 2012 Decision and the October 10, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 93939 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award for attorney’s fees in favor of respondents-spouses Ernesto and Flora Sotelo is DELETED..

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

A PROPERTY WAS MADE COLLATERAL TO SECURE A LOAN OF P140,000.00. THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS P1,750,000.00. THE DOCUMENT EXECUTED WAS A DEED OF SALE. THE CREDITOR THEN CAUSED THE ISSUANCE OF NEW TITLE IN HIS NAME.  THE SUPREME COURT DECLARED THE TRANSACTION AS EQUITABLE MORTGAGE. THE NEW TITLE IS VOID.

As the transaction between the parties herein was demonstrated to be one of equitable mortgage, petitioner did not become owner of the subject property but a mere mortgagee thereof. As such, petitioner was bound by the prohibition against pactum commissorium as embodied in Article 2088 of the Civil Code:

Art. 2088. The creditor cannot appropriate the things given by way of pledge or mortgage, or dispose of them. Any stipulation to the contrary is null and void.

The mortgagee’s consolidation of ownership over the mortgaged property upon the mortgagor’s mere failure to pay the obligation is the essence of pactum commissorium. 36 The mortgagor’s default does not operate to automatically vest on the mortgagee the ownership  of the encumbered property. This Court has repeatedly declared such arrangements as contrary to morals and public policy and thus void.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

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