Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., Carlos C. Salinas, and Norwegian CREW MANAGEMENT A/S, Petitioners, v. CESAR C. PELAGIO, Respondent

    Uploaded by

    Larissa
    171 views1 page
    Petitioner hired Pelagio to work on a vessel. Pelagio experienced breathing difficulties and pain while working. He was examined by doctors and declared unfit for work. Pelagio sought permanent total disability benefits, but was only awarded partial disability. The NLRC reversed and awarded Pelagio total disability benefits and fees. Petitioners paid pursuant to a Satisfaction of Judgment but argued their certiorari petition was still pending. The CA dismissed the petition finding the agreement a compromise, but the Supreme Court held the case was not moot as the agreement specified it did not prejudice the petition.

    Original Description:

    rem

    Original Title

    pe

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Petitioner hired Pelagio to work on a vessel. Pelagio experienced breathing difficulties and pain while working. He was examined by doctors and declared unfit for work. Pelagio sought permanent total disability benefits, but was only awarded partial disability. The NLRC reversed and awarded Pelagio total disability benefits and fees. Petitioners paid pursuant to a Satisfaction of Judgment but argued their certiorari petition was still pending. The CA dismissed the petition finding the agreement a compromise, but the Supreme Court held the case was not moot as the agreement specified it did not prejudice the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    171 views1 page

    Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., Carlos C. Salinas, and Norwegian CREW MANAGEMENT A/S, Petitioners, v. CESAR C. PELAGIO, Respondent

    Uploaded by

    Larissa
    Petitioner hired Pelagio to work on a vessel. Pelagio experienced breathing difficulties and pain while working. He was examined by doctors and declared unfit for work. Pelagio sought permanent total disability benefits, but was only awarded partial disability. The NLRC reversed and awarded Pelagio total disability benefits and fees. Petitioners paid pursuant to a Satisfaction of Judgment but argued their certiorari petition was still pending. The CA dismissed the petition finding the agreement a compromise, but the Supreme Court held the case was not moot as the agreement specified it did not prejudice the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., CARLOS C.

    SALINAS, AND NORWEGIAN


    CREW MANAGEMENT A/S, Petitioners, v. CESAR C. PELAGIO, Respondent.

    Petitioner hired Pelagio as a Motorman on board the vessel MN Drive Mahone for a period of 6
    months. Pelagio experienced difficulty in breathing and pains on the nape, lower back, and
    joints while at work. Pelagio was then referred to a port doctor in Egypt where he was declared
    unfit to work. Pelagio was repatriated back to the Philippines for further medical treatment. After
    a series of medical and laboratory examinations, Pelagio was assessed by the company-
    designated physician with a disability rating of Grade 11 - "slight loss of lifting power of the
    trunk." Pelagio sought a second opinion from a private orthopedic surgeon physician who
    declared him permanently unfit to work in any capacity at his previous occupation. Pelagio
    sought payment of permanent total disability benefits from petitioners, but to no avail. Hence, he
    filed a complaint before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. The LA found that Pelagio was
    suffering from a permanent partial disability and ordered petitioners to pay. The NLRC reversed
    and set aside the LA ruling, and accordingly, awarded Pelagio the amount equivalent at the time
    of actual payment representing permanent total disability benefits and attorney's fees. After the
    motion for reconsideration was dismissed, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari. During the
    pendency of the certiorari proceedings, the parties executed a Satisfaction of Judgment dated
    stating that petitioners had already paid the full and complete satisfaction of the NLRC ruling.
    However, it is likewise stated therein that such satisfaction of judgment is without prejudice to
    the petition for certiorari pending with the CA and that the same was being made only to prevent
    imminent execution. On even date, Pelagio likewise executed a Receipt of Payment and an
    Affidavit of Claimant. The NLRC issued an Order approving the settlement and considered the
    case closed and terminated. The CA dismissed the certiorari petition, ruling that the Satisfaction
    of Judgment executed by the parties is in the nature of a compromise agreement, which was
    properly approved by the NLRC, as it did not contravene any law, morals, public policy, or public
    order.

    Issue

    whether or not the execution of the Satisfaction of Judgment between the parties rendered
    the certiorari proceedings before the CA moot and academic.

    Held
    Yes, the CA erred in dismissing the certiorari petition.A compromise agreement is a contract
    whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one
    already commenced. A valid compromise agreement may render a pending case moot and
    academic. However, the parties may opt to put therein clauses, conditions, and the like that
    would prevent a pending case from becoming moot and academic - such as when the execution
    of such agreement is without prejudice to the final disposition of the said case. After all, a
    compromise agreement is still a contract by nature, and as such, the parties are free to insert
    clauses to modify its legal effects, so long as such modifications are not contrary to law, morals,
    good customs, public order, or public policy.47cralawrednad

    Since the agreement in that case was fair to the parties in that it provided available remedies to
    both parties, the certiorari petition was not rendered moot despite the employer's satisfaction of
    the judgment award, as the respondent had obliged himself to return the payment if the petition
    would be granted.

    You might also like