Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Screenshot - 2019!07!22 Labor Law - Rickmers Marine Agency Phils, Inc, Et Al V Edmund San Jose, G R No 220949, July 23, 2018

    Загружено:

    Anne Macaraig
    8 просмотров1 страница
    Screenshot_2019!07!22 Labor Law - Rickmers Marine Agency Phils , Inc , Et Al v Edmund San Jose, G R No 220949, July 23, 2018

    Оригинальное название

    Screenshot_2019!07!22 Labor Law - Rickmers Marine Agency Phils , Inc , Et Al v Edmund San Jose, G R No 220949, July 23, 2018

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    Screenshot_2019!07!22 Labor Law - Rickmers Marine Agency Phils , Inc , Et Al v Edmund San Jose, G R No 220949, July 23, 2018

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    8 просмотров1 страница

    Screenshot - 2019!07!22 Labor Law - Rickmers Marine Agency Phils, Inc, Et Al V Edmund San Jose, G R No 220949, July 23, 2018

    Загружено:

    Anne Macaraig
    Screenshot_2019!07!22 Labor Law - Rickmers Marine Agency Phils , Inc , Et Al v Edmund San Jose, G R No 220949, July 23, 2018

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 1
    GR No. 220949 july 23, 2018 ICKIMERS MARINE AGENCY PHILS, INC, GLOBAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED AND/OR GEORGE C. GUERRERO, ?ectione~; v, EDMUND R. SAN JOSE, Respondent. CAGUIOA J: CCompleinane Edrund ®. Son Jose was engaged by Respondent local manning agency Rickmers Marine Agency Phi. Inc and George C. Guerrero for ene in behel of ts foreign crincipal Global Management Linites, for deployment cn boars the vessel MV Maersk Edinourg Sometime in February 2011, Complainant upon waking complained of loss offimpaired vision in his left eye. He condition was then reported tothe ship's capisin and at the cort of callin Singacore allowed for a mecicsl examination of his left eye and prescribed eye Grose. Even as his condition cis not improve, Complainant continued with his journey anc upon errival in Le Havre France, wes seen by an opnenalmologic on February 28, 2011 who iagnosed rim with retinal cetachmentitearaffectng the macul. ‘Sometime in Maren 2011, Complainant was referres'to the Respondent's designated prysician, Dr Natalio G Alegre I ofthe Alegre Medical Cnc locatec «St, Luse’s Hospital. Complainant wae aacecseo to be suffaring from magmstoganous retinal dacacrmenc witn proliferative vireoretnopetny,letce ‘osgeneration, myopia ano was recommencea for aye surgery to attach tne retina Even efter undergoing more than ane (1) ye surgery, che signe of the complainant in is laf aye remaine blurred ff not impaies. tus he instcuten & complaint for permanent total cisatlity benefice on February 14,2012 “The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondent consiveres respondent's illness as compensable as it occurres onboard the vessel ané curing the effectivity ays: thus, entting him to total permanent csobilty benefits. employment contrect Furthermore, the LA reesoned that reszengent hac failed to resume his cuties es 2 seafarer for more then 120 Petitioners elevates the case to the NLRC. the NLRC issued is Decsion reversing the LAs ruling. The NLRC notea chat the respondent's epcointed [physician ci ot state in tre medical certificate ary grading for wnich complainant should be compensated, netter cic tne company. designated prysician. In fact Goth the mecical cerfications/acsescments from the tno doctors stated that respondent was “fitto work" The NLRC helo cnt ppettioners were only lsble for respondent’ salaries aunng the unexpired porton of the employment contract. Respondent eleveted the case to the Court of Appeals. The CA et aside tne NLRC Decision and Resolution and reinstates tne LA Decision. The Aneta that respondent was aole to prove his caim of toxal permanent eiseilty benafis witn substariial idence ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is entiled to permanent disability bereits? HELD: rung of the Court of Anoedisis affirmed LABOR LAW: total permanent disability benefits Write ine respective decisions ofthe LA NLRC, and CA are contracictory, me signicent dates in ine case are not cisputea: thet respondent was cally repatriateo ana arrived in the Prilippines on Maren 3, 2011. Responaent was examined oy che company-cecignetea prycician ana wes clagnoseo witn “negmatogencus retinal oatachmant witn prokferatve vitreoretinopary,lacice cegeneration, myopia” in the let aye. Responant’s conattion necessitated sve operations on the affected aye, which ne underwent on March 16,201 1 ang Seotember 18,2011. On Novarer 21, 2011 the company-cesignateo physician issuee a macical report declaring rim “fitto work “The resolution af this contravers lies in the determination of pattioners’ compliance vi n the menatory procecures and periods Under the POEASEC, \which fs the contrect and law betiteen the parties. The cited 120/240-

    Вам также может понравиться