Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION v. OBERTO S. LOBUSTA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 211882 2015-07-29	ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILS. v. ERNESTO S. QUIOGUE MENDOZA, J.
Likewise, in Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. Lobusta,[23] the seafarer was granted permanent and total disability benefits because the medical treatment lasted for more than 240 days. The seafarer therein was examined by the company-designated physician on May 22, 1998. On February 16, 1999, however, the seafarer was still prescribed medications for his lumbosacral pain and was advised to return for reevaluation. From May 22, 1998 to February 16, 1999, 264 days elapsed or 6 days short of 9 months.
	GR No. 204845 2015-06-15	BELCHEM PHILIPPINES v. EDUARDO A. ZAFRA MENDOZA, J.
Similarly, in United Philippine Lines v. Sibig[34] and Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Lobusta[35] the Court also affirmed the award of US$60,000 as permanent and total disability benefits where after the lapse of 240 days there was no declaration of permanent disability issued by the company-designated physician.
	GR No. 204233 2014-09-03	RICARDO A. DALUSONG v. EAGLE CLARC SHIPPING PHILIPPINES CARPIO, ACTING C.J.
The Court of Appeals cited Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Lobusta,[12] which held that if the medical treatment lasted more than 120 days with no declaration of the seafarer's permanent disability by the company-designated doctor because further medical attention is still required, then the temporary total disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists. In this case, the Court of Appeals observed that petitioner's medical examination and treatment lasted for 180 days, after which the company-designated doctor found petitioner to be suffering from total partial disability with a final disability rating of grade 11. Thus, the Court of Appeals nullified the NLRC Decisions dated 12 August 2011 and 25 October 2011, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's assignment of grade 11 disability to petitioner. However, the Court of Appeals ruled that the award of attorney's fees is unwarranted since there was no showing that private respondents acted in bad faith.
	GR No. 162809 2012-09-05	PACIFIC OCEAN MANNING v. BENJAMIN D. PENALES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court finds petitioners to be mistaken in their notion that in determining the disability benefits due a seafarer, only the POEA SEC, specifically its schedule of benefits, must be considered. This Court has ruled that such is governed not only by medical findings but also by contract and law. [26] The applicability of the Labor Code, particularly Article 192(c)(1), to seafarers, is already a settled issue.[27] This Court, in Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Lobusta, [28] reiterating our ruling in Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission,[29] held: The standard employment contract for seafarers was formulated by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under [Executive Order] No. 247 to "secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure compliance therewith" and to "promote and protect the well-being of Filipino workers overseas." Section 29 of the 1996 POEA [Standard Employment Contract] itself provides that "[a]ll rights and obligations of the parties to [the] Contract, including the annexes thereof, shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, international conventions, treaties and covenants where the Philippines is a signatory." Even without this provision, a contract of labor is so impressed with public interest that the New Civil Code expressly subjects it to "the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects."
	GR No. 177907 2012-08-29	FAIR SHIPPING CORP. v. JOSELITO T. MEDEL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Incidentally, although the contract involved in Vergara was the 2000 POEA SEC, the Court applied the ruling therein to the case of Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Lobusta,[41] which involved the 1996 POEA SEC. As noted in Lobusta, the first paragraph of Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA SEC was copied verbatim from the first paragraph of Section 20(B)(3) of the 1996 POEA SEC.
	GR No. 181180 2012-08-15	PHILASIA SHIPPING AGENCY CORPORATION v. ANDRES G. TOMACRUZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The petitioners are mistaken in their notion that only the POEA SEC should be considered in resolving the issue at hand. The applicability of the Labor Code provisions on permanent disability, particularly Article 192(c)(1), to seafarers, is already a settled matter.[44] This Court, in the recent case of Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Lobusta, [45] reiterating our ruling in Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission,[46] explained: The standard employment contract for seafarers was formulated by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under Executive Order No. 247 to "secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure compliance therewith" and to "promote and protect the wellbeing of Filipino workers overseas." Section 29 of the 1996 POEA [Standard Employment Contract] itself provides that "[a]ll rights and obligations of the parties to [the] Contract, including the annexes thereof, shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, international conventions, treaties and covenants where the Philippines is a signatory." Even without this provision, a contract of labor is so impressed with public interest that the New Civil Code expressly subjects it to the "special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects."
	GR No. 194677 2012-04-18	ALEN H. SANTIAGO v. PACBASIN SHIPMANAGEMENT MENDOZA, J.
In the recent case of Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. Lobusta,[17] this Court also referred to, and applied, the ruling in Vergara in this manner: Article 192(c)(1) under Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code, as amended, reads: