GR No. 225142: September 13, 2017 [NYK-FIL SHIP MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED, Petisoner. v. GENER G. DABU, Respondent. PERALTA, J: Pettioner employed respondent to warkas an ole for rine months anbaard vith e monthly basic salary of USSSB4, among others, The contract ‘between tne mo was effective from January 2012 to December 2014. On March 2013, ne was ciagnoses with oianetes melitus (On Apel 2013, resoondent eischorged his duty as an oiler He suffered from calptations pairs ell over the body, nuribness of hands and lezs, lack of sleep and nervousness A doctarin Sri Lanke found him with elevated blo auger level and was suffering from alabates mellitus, and declares him unft for sea dur. Thus, ne was repacriatec to Manila On July 2012, he company-cesignated prysicion declored that respondent's clabetes mellitus is not work-related. However, ne continued his treatments cate ofthe petitioner Respondent wrote leters to petitioner appealing forthe continuation of his treatment since his sickness wes workrelated taking ince account nis 23 years of workingin cetkioners verious vessale, Respondent then consulted Dr. Efren R.Vicoldo ofthe Prligpine Heart Center who foun him suffenng from siabetes melitus insulin requinns, Impediment Grace Vl (At 80%) and declares him permanently unfit ts resume wark as a seeamarin ary cacacty and hisillness is considered work: aggravatecirelatec. He also concukee Dr. Czzrina Sneherazace Mee A. Miguel, an Internal Medicine Speciale. whose finging was tne came as witn Dr Viceloos. Respondent sought peyment of cisabilty benefits, ameges and attorney's fees from petioner, ut was denied. He requested fora grievance proceesingin accordance wien the CBA, nowever, the partgs old not raecn any sestiemant, He then flee 2 nocce to arbitrate with wie National Conciliation Mediation Boara (NCMB), anc ine parties were required to suomt tne postion papers. NCMB-Pane! of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA) ruled in favor of respondent. Agarieved, pattioner flea before the CA petivon for review unger Rule 43 alaging thee PVA committee serious errors in renderings eecision ane sout to enjoin tne same from enforcing it. CA grantes sne pettion, Responcient fled a motion for reconsideration wherein he reiterates his argument raise in his mamorencium thet the pation shoul be diemisses for being flea out of time. CA reverses its formar ruling ano grances rescondent’s MR. Hence thi case, ISSUE: inacnes or not the CA erreo in renoering en amenage judgment anc lsrissing tne Pattioner’s aapeel on the groung that it wes alegealy feo curof HELD: CAs cecision is afrmed LABOR LAW: appeal, voluntary arbitrators Clearly, the Gecision of the voluntary artitratcr becomes final ang executor efter 10 deys from receiat thereat. The proper remedy to reverse or mocify 2 voluntary arbitrators of pene! of voluntary arbitrators dacision isto appeal the award or cecsion via a pation uncier Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Ci Procedure. Ane under Section 4 ef Rule €3, the periog to appeal to tne CAs 15 cays from receipt ofthe decision, Nowithetencing since Article 262-4 of ‘the Labor Code expressly proves that the award or decision of the voluntary arbitrator shal be finsl anc executary after ten (10) calender cays from receipt of the decision by the partes, the appeal of the VA's decision to the CA must be fled within 10 deys The Court of Appeals (CA) correctly neld thas inasmuch as the panel of voluntary arbitrators (PVA'S) decision had lapsed into finality the same may no longer be moaifiesin any respect. This is so because any amencment or ateration msde vhich substantially affecs te final and evecutory judermert ‘ould be null and voic for lack of jurisdiction, To stress, Aricke 262-A of tne Labor Coce provides for a periag often cays to appeal che PVA's decision The 10-cay period to appeal uncer tne Labor CCoge beinga suestantve rigt cenrot be aiminisnes,incressea, or modified through tne Rules of Court. The PHILECs cecision merely apolies what is stated in the evisting lai In fact 0s correctly pointed cut by the CA in Coca-Cola Batters Prilipgines, Inc, Sales Force Union-PTGWO-Balas v. Coce-Cola Boles Philippines, Inc, 464 SCRA SOT, « 2005 case, we hed alreacy affirmed the CA’ dismisal cf the pation flea with it on the ground thet the epee cof tne PUA’ cecision was not flea within tne 10-cay period sa that the PVA: decison Nac alreacy ataines fnslty. Wile hare are decisions subsequent ‘to the Coca-Cois case stating that a pettion for review assaling the PYA's decsion must ue files wthin 15 cays from receipt of the PVAS decision however, we reiterate in the PHILEC decision, which isthe recert decision that the voluntary arbitrators Gecision must be appealed before the CA within 10 celenoar ays from receiot of tne cecicion 2 provices in the Labor Cove. Ic bears stressing tac the PHILEC cace wes eecived on December 10, 2014, wnile tne petition was fed wtn ine CA only on February 24, 2014, consequently, re PHILECs decsion applies to tne instant case Petition for review on certiorari is DENIED.