6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ENGAGED IN SPECULATIONS WHEN IT RULED THAT "IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE INFARCT WAS CAUSED BY THE CEREBRAL ACCIDENT ON NOVEMBER 13, 2013". THE CT SCAN CLEARLY PROVED THAT THERE WAS NO CEREBRAL EVENT OR ACCIDENT ON THE SAID DATE. THE USE OF THE PHRASE "IT IS POSSIBLE" IS A CLEAR INDICATION OF "SPECULATION". C. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER YAMSON SUFFERED A STROKE OR NOT WHILE WORKING ON BOARD THE VESSEL OF PETITIONER, IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHICH IS NOT THE PROPER SUBJECT OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS. D. REALITIES ON BOARD M/V FOXHOUND MILITATES AGAINST THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS' FINDINGS THAT THE NATURE OF YAMSON'S EMPLOYMENT AS A THIRD OFFICER HAS REGULARLY EXPOSED HIM TO STRESS, LACK OF SLEEP AND OTHER SIMILAR HAZARDS WHICH LED HIM TO HAVE A STROKE THAT THE CT SCAN SHOWED YAMSON DID NOT HAVE A SCHEMIC STROKE NOR HEMORRHAGIC STROKE ON NOVEMBER 13, 2013. E. YAMSON COMMITTED FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION ABOUT HIS PAST MEDICAL CONDITION IN HIS PEME WHEN HE DID NOT DISCLOSE AND IN FACT CONCEALED FROM THE PETITIONER THAT HE HAD ALREADY INCURRED A CEREBRAL EVENT LONG BEFORE HIS PEME BEFORE BEING EMPLOYED BY LISI. F. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FAULTED DR. TEVES, THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN FOR HIS ALLEGED FAILURE TO MAKE A COMPLETE ASSESSMENT OF YAMSON'S HEALTH. ON RECORD, IT WAS YAMSON WHO FAILED TO COMPLETE HIS POST MEDICAL EXAMINATION AFTER HIS REPATRIATION PURSUANT TO SEC. 20(A), No. 3 OF THE 2010 POEA STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT. THIS IS MEDICAL ABANDONMENT. THE COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DISREGARDED THE FINDINGS OF THE COMPANYDESIGNATED PHYSICIAN WHO EXAMINED YAMSON FOR NINE (9) DAYS IN FAVOR OF THE MEDICAL OPINION OF THE PRIVATE PHYSICIAN OF YAMSON WHO EXAMINED HIM elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64139 4/14