8/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Moreover, petitioner questions the reliance of the Court of Appeals on the companydesignated physician's assessment. He argues that neither the POEA Standard Employment Contract nor the Collective Bargaining Agreement provides that the company-designated physician's assessment would be the lone basis to determine if a seafarer suffers from permanent total disability. Citing jurisprudence, he claims that the company-designated physician's findings may be prone to being biased in the company's favor.[44] Petitioner stresses that the company-designated physician's assessment that he only required a one (1)-year treatment is inaccurate, as he still underwent medication and therapy due to the injuries.[45] Petitioner also clarifies that he consulted Dr. Raymundo on July 13, 2013, not September 17, 2013. He claims that the error in dates is immaterial because the relevant facts remain: after respondents cut off the medical assistance when the 240day period lapsed, he consulted Dr. Raymundo, an independent orthopedic surgeon.[46] Petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals erred in solely relying on the companyphysician's disability grading and ignoring that even this assessment had shown that the injury was serious. He argues that his inability to work for more than 120 days or 240 days has rendered his disability permanent.[47] Since his repatriation, "petitioner has not been able to engage in any meaningful activity . . . and there was no . . . indication that he will recover normalcy."[48] He argues that this makes him more strongly entitled to disability benefits, as his injury occurred during his employment on board the vessel of respondents. For having been incapacitated since October 2012, he claims that he must be awarded disability compensation for permanent and total disability in the amount of US$90,000.00.[49] Petitioner also argues that the Court of Appeals erred in deciding on respondents' Petition for Certiorari as the issues involved alleged misapprehension of facts and misappreciation of evidence, which are correctable only on appeal. Citing jurisprudence, petitioner asserts that a writ of certiorari may not be used to correct a lower tribunal's evaluation of the evidence and factual findings. He argues that since the labor tribunals did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in their judgments, there is no reason to overturn their findings.[50] Finally, petitioner asserts that he is entitled to sickness allowance worth US$2,700.00 and reimbursement of medical and transportation expenses worth P85,000.00. This is since respondents stopped providing medical support since January 2013, leaving petitioner to shoulder the costs. He further claims to be entitled to P300,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, because respondents' refusal to pay their contractual obligations is tainted with bad faith.[51] On the other hand, respondents argue that the Court of Appeals is correct in giving more credence to the company-designated physician's assessment than that of petitioner's personal doctor. They argue that the latter's Medical Certificate is riddled with doubt, since the form appears to have been purposely issued only for disability evaluation.[52] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65396 5/20