6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The NLRC Ruling In its 6 March 2007 resolution, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA. It observed that while Dedace's illness was disputably presumed to be work-related under Section 20(B), paragraph 4 of the POEA-SEC, such disputable presumption was overcome when Dr. Cruz declared said illness was not work-related. The NLRC further stated that PhilMan's payment of Dedace's sickness allowance and medical expenses did not amount to recognition that his illness was work-related. The decretal portion of the resolution reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered complainant's appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of merit and the Decision appealed from [is] AFFIRMED in toto.[16] Dedace moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the NLRC in its 22 October 2007 resolution. Aggrieved, Dedace filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA Ruling In its assailed decision, the CA granted Dedace's petition. The CA opined that the petitioners failed to overcome the disputable presumption that Dedace's illness was work-related. It held that Dr. Cruz neither explained nor specified how he arrived at his conclusion that Dedace's illness was not work-related. Thus, it held that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it grossly misapprehended the facts of the case. The fallo states: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged Resolutions of respondent NLRC are NULLIFIED in so far as they denied petitioner's prayer for permanent disability benefits. Accordingly, private respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay petitioner: a) permanent total disability benefits of US$60,000.00 at its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment; b) sickness allowance equivalent to thirty (30) days or one (1) month amounting to Four Hundred Sixty Five U.S. Dollars (U.S.$465.00); and c) attorney's fees often percent (10%) of the total monetary award at its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment.[17] The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA in its 24 October 2011 resolution. Hence, this petition for review alleging the following: ISSUES I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED PATENT AND elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64366 4/13