8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Petitioner also questions the Court of Appeals' reliance on the letters submitted by respondents. It erroneously considered these letters as Medical Certificates, when they were mere correspondences issued by Dr. Bacungan. He further notes that Dr. Bacungan was not the physician who actually conducted the tests on him. As such, her opinions are hearsay and have no probative value.[55] Conversely, petitioner claims that the findings of his chosen physicians, Dr. Runas and Dr. Pascual, are more credible and reliable because they are independent medical experts who evaluated and examined him in person.[56] Petitioner also argues that his injury resulted from an accident, contrary to the Court of Appeals' conclusion. He reasoned that he was unaware of Fong's intention to hurt him, believing that their previous squabble had already been resolved. He says that he could not have foreseen what had happened as it was impossible to anticipate what Fong intended to do.[57] Finally., petitioner argues that while he raises questions of facts improper in a Rule 45 petition, these questions fall under the exceptions to the rule. He alleges that the Court of Appeals: (1) committed grave abuse of discretion; (2) premised its findings on a misapprehension of facts; and (3) based its conclusions on facts without citing specific evidence.[58] On the other hand, respondents contend that the company-designated physician's assessment was correctly given more weight since it was a more extensive and thorough evaluation of petitioner's condition. They question petitioner's allegation that the company-designated physician's finding is erroneous, as the assessment was based on evaluative tests and procedures.[59] Respondents further argue that contrary to petitioner's claim that he is unfit to work or is suffering from disability, his chosen physician's Medical Report only stated that he suffers from physical discomfort and is keen on reconstructive surgery.[60] Respondents also claim that the company-designated physician's evaluation should be upheld since petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory rule of referring the matter to a third doctor.[61] Moreover, respondents argue that because the Collective Bargaining Agreement precludes disability claims due to willful acts, it is not applicable to petitioner's case since his injury did not result from an accident. Hence, his claim should be denied.[62] Furthermore, respondents claim that the controlling Collective Bargaining Agreement, which provides maximum disability benefits at US$90,882.00, prevails over the Collective Bargaining Agreement that petitioner presented, which provides maximum disability benefits of US$250,000.00.[63] Respondents also claim that the position of a fitter, which is not a licensed crew, has https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65333 7/22