ARIEL A. EBUENGA v.

SOUTHFIELD AGENCIE
GR No. 208396, Mar 14, 2018
LEONEN, J.

FACTS:
Ebuenga was hired by Southfield Agencies, Inc. (Southfield) as a chief cook aboard
respondent Wilhemsen Ship Management Holding Ltd.'s (Wilhemsen) vessel, MTV Super
Adventure. Ebuenga boarded the vessel on December 19, 2010.About two (2) months
into his engagement, or on February 26, 2011, Ebuenga wrote a letter to Southfield,
Wilhemsen, and Captain Sonny Valencia (Capt. Valencia) (collectively, respondents),
asking that he be repatriated as soon as possible "to attend to a family problem."[11]
Respondents acted favorably on this request and Ebuenga was repatriated on March 5,
2011.
Without consulting Southfield's designated physician, Ebuenga had himself checked at
St. Luke's Medical Center where he underwent Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The test
revealed that he was afflicted with "Multilevel Disk Dessication. He was advised to
undergo physical therapy.
Ebuenga went back to his hometown in Bogtong, Legaspi City to undergo physical
therapy sessions. Thereafter, he consulted Dr. Misael Jonathan A. Ticman, who issued a
Disability Report, finding him to be permanently disabled and no longer fit to work as a
seafarer. Consequently, Ebuenga filed a complaint for permanent disability benefits.
In his Position Paper, Ebuenga disavowed voluntarily seeking repatriation on account of
a family concern. He claimed instead that upon embarkation, a crew member died from
overfatigue. He reported this death to the International Transport Workers' Federation,
which took no action. Incensed at Ebuenga's actions, the captain of the vessel, Capt.
Jonathan B. Lecias, Sr. (Capt. Lecias), coerced him to sign a letter seeking immediate
repatriation. Ebuenga also claimed to have reported to Capt. Lecias that he was suffering
intense back pain, but the latter refused to entertain this because of the animosity
between them. He added that upon repatriation, he sought medical assistance from the
company-designated physician but was refused. Thus, he was forced to seek treatment
on his own.
In their defense, respondents denied that there was ever an incident
Labor Arbiter Savari dismissed Ebuenga's complaint. Labor Arbiter Savari explained that
Ebuenga failed to prove that he had suffered an illness or injury while on board the M/V
Super Adventure. She added that Ebuenga may no longer claim disability benefits for
failing to undergo a post-employment medical examination with the company-designated
physician.
The National Labor Relations Commission denied Ebuenga's appeal.
Court of Appeals found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor
Relations Commission. It also denied Ebuenga's Motion for Reconsideration
Hence, Ebuenga filed the present Petition.

MULA, IANE GEM M. 1

Issues:
Whether or not petitioner Ariel A. Ebuenga is entitled to permanent disability benefits.
Subsumed under this is the issue of whether or not his failure to have himself examined
by the company-designated physician bars him from pursuing his claim.
Ruling:
Section 20(B) of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard
Employment Contract (POEA-SEC)[24] established the procedures for assessing claims
for disability benefits. It mandates seafarers to see a company-designated physician for
a post-employment medical examination, which must be done within three (3) working
days from their arrival. Failure to comply shall result in the forfeiture of the right to claim
disability benefits... a temporary total disability only becomes permanent when so
declared by the company physician within the periods he is allowed to do so, or upon the
expiration of the maximum 240-day medical treatment period without a declaration of
either fitness to work or the existence of a permanent disability. In the present case, while
the initial 120-day treatment or temporary total disability period was exceeded, the
company-designated doctor duly made a declaration well within the extended 240-day
period that the petitioner was fit to work. Viewed from this perspective, both the NLRC
and CA were legally correct when they refused to recognize any disability because the
petitioner had already been declared fit to resume his duties. In the absence of any
disability after his temporary total disability was addressed, any further discussion of
permanent partial and total disability, their existence, distinctions and consequences,
becomes a surplusage that serves no useful purpose.
In cases where the employer refuses to have the seafarer examined, the seafarer's claim
for disability benefits is not hindered by his or her reliance on a physician of his or her
own choosing
Petitioner's cause is grossly deficient in several ways. First, he failed to undergo the
requisite examination, thereby creating a situation resulting in the forfeiture of his claims.
This alone suffices for the denial of his Petition. Second, he posited a narrative of
indifference and oppression but failed to adduce even the slightest substantiation of it. He
asked this Court to overturn the consistent findings of the three (3) tribunals but offered
nothing other than his word as proof. Finally, he averred a medical condition from which
no causal connection can be drawn to his brief engagement as chief cook. He would have
this Court sustain an imputation grounded on coincidence and conjecture.In this review,
this Court is bound by basic logical parameters. First, as a court without the opportunity
to personally peruse the evidence, this Court cannot cavalierly disregard the uniform
anterior findings of the three (3) tribunals. Second, a factual conclusion must be borne by
substantial evidence. Finally, this Court should not award disability benefits absent a
causal relationship between a seafarer's work and ailment. Petitioner's case fails in all
these parameters. Hence, his Petition must be denied.

MULA, IANE GEM M. 2

ANGELITO MAGNO v. PEOPLE PHILIPPINES
GR No. 230657, Mar 14, 2018
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Facts:
On May 14, 2003, an Information was filed before the RTC charging, inter alia, petitioner
(who was then serving as Investigative Agent IV of the National Bureau of Investigation)
with Multiple Frustrated Murder and Double Attempted Murder.
After arraignment, petitioner objected to the formal appearance of one Atty. Adelino Sitoy
(Atty. Sitoy), who intended to act as a private prosecutor for and in behalf of the Office of
the Ombudsman (Ombudsman). In the Orders dated September 25, 2003 and October
1, 2003, the RTC ruled that only the Ombudsman may prosecute the instant case, to the
exclusion of any other entity/person other than those authorized under Republic Act No.
6770.[8] The Ombudsman and Atty. Sitoy questioned the RTC's aforesaid Orders to the
Court of Appeals (CA), which, in a Decision dated September 26, 2005, ruled that the
private prosecutor may prosecute the case and appear for the People of the Philippines
in collaboration with any lawyer deputized by the Ombudsman. Eventually, the matter
reached the Court,[9] which nullified the CA's pronouncements on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction, ratiocinating that the Ombudsman and Atty. Sitoy should have sought
recourse from the SB instead (Private Prosecutor Case).
While the Private Prosecutor Case was still pending before the CA, the latter court issued
a temporary restraining order (TRO), and thereafter, a preliminary injunction enjoining the
RTC from implementing its Orders dated September 25, 2003 and October 1, 2003. This
notwithstanding and upon motion by the prosecution, the CA clarified in a Resolution
dated January 19, 2005 that the injunctive writs do not operate to enjoin the proceedings
in Crim. Case No. DU-10123, provided that it is conducted in the presence of the private
prosecutor. Thus, the prosecution moved to set the case for trial and started presenting
one of its witnesses on March 29, 2005. In the course of the prosecution's presentation
of witnesses, the RTC sustained petitioner's objection on the admissibility of one of the
witness's testimony, prompting the prosecution to elevate the matter to the SB (Objection
Case). Initially, the SB issued a sixty (60)-day TRO enjoining the RTC from proceeding
with Crim. Case No. DU-10123. In a Decision dated February 12, 2007, the SB dismissed
the Objection Case.
Meanwhile and after the expiration of the TRO in the Objection Case, petitioner filed on
March 16, 2006 a Motion to Set Case for Continuous Hearing before the RTC, invoking
his right to speedy trial.
RTC granted petitioner's motion to dismiss on the ground of violation of the latter's right
to speedy trial.
The prosecution moved for reconsideration,[22] which was, however, denied
Aggrieved, the prosecution filed a petition for certiorari[24] before the SB.
SB set aside the RTC ruling and, accordingly, ordered the reinstatement of Crim. Case
No. DU- 10123 and for the RTC to conduct further proceedings immediately.

MULA, IANE GEM M. 3

Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the same was denied in a Resolution[29] dated
February 15, 2017; hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the SB correctly ascribed grave abuse on the part of the RTC when the
latter court found that petitioner's right to speedy trial has been violated.

Ruling:
The petition is meritorious.
Preliminarily, the Court points out the distinct approach in dealing with Rule 45 petitions
for review on certiorari that seek to review a ruling of a lower court, such as the SB,
regarding a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. In a Rule 45 review, the Court examines the
correctness of the SB ruling in contrast with the review of jurisdictional errors under Rule
65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits the review to questions of law. In ruling for legal
correctness, the Court must view the SB ruling in the same context that the petition for
certiorari was presented to the latter court. Hence, the Court has to examine the SB ruling
from the prism of whether or not it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave
abuse of discretion in the assailed ruling, i.e., that of the RTC.
Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. It is the
exercise of a power in an arbitrary manner. It must be so patent or gross as to amount to
an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined or to act at
all in contemplation of law. Case law provides that grave abuse of discretion exists when
the act is: (a) done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence; or (b) executed
whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or personal bias.
Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the CA erred in ascribing
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. As will be explained hereunder, the RTC
ruling finding that petitioner's right to speedy trial has been violated finds support in
prevailing law and jurisprudence.

MULA, IANE GEM M. 4