Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NORIEL R. MONTIERRO v. RICKMERS MARINE AGENCY PHILS.

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 203115 2015-12-07	ISLAND OVERSEAS TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. ARMANDO M. BEJA DEL CASTILLO, J.
More importantly, in Montierro v. Rickmers Marine Agency Phils., Inc.[46] and Eyana v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc.,[47] the Court applied the ruling in Kestrel, that if the maritime compensation complaint was filed prior to October 6, 2008, the rule on the 120-day period, during which the disability assessment should have been made in accordance with Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad,[48] that is, the doctrine then prevailing before the promulgation of Vergara on October 6, 2008, stands; if, on the other hand, the complaint was filed from October 6, 2008 onwards, the 240-day rule applies.
	GR No. 215471 2015-11-23	MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILIPPINES INC. v. BRAULIO A. OSIAS MENDOZA, J.
To further clarify the conflict between Crystal Shipping and Vergara, the Court in Montierro v. Rickmers Marine Agency Phils., Inc.[27] stated that "[i]f the maritime compensation complaint was filed prior to October 6, 2008, the 120-day rule applies; if, on the other hand, the complaint was filed from October 6, 2008 onwards, the 240-day rule applies."
	GR No. 192389 2015-09-23	C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT v. ROLANDO F. OBLIGADO SERENO, C.J.
In this case, Montierro filed his Complaint on 3 December 2010, which was after the promulgation of Vergara on 6 October 2008. Hence, it is the 240-day rule that applies to this case, and not the 120-day rule.[44] (citations omitted and boldface supplied)