5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the inclusion of restitution as part of the reliefs prayed for before the CA.[44] Ruling of the CA In a Decision[45] dated May 5, 2016, the CA granted respondents' petition for certiorari. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 8 April 2014 and Resolution dated 9 May 2014 issued by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. LAC 02-000149-14 are hereby SET ASIDE. Private respondent is ordered to return to petitioners the amount of Two Million Nine Hundred Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (Php2,943,600.00) less the equivalent of $7,465.00 in Philippine currency as of 16 October 2014, the date of receipt of payment by private respondent, as compensation for Grade 11 disability. SO ORDERED.[46] The CA found grave abuse of discretion on the part of NLRC in issuing the assailed NLRC Decision and Resolution, and held that the conclusions of the NLRC are unsupported by substantial evidence and contrary to the provisions of the POEA-SEC. [47] The CA found that Pastrana failed to observe the procedure outlined in Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC, which requires the referral to and appointment of a third doctor whose medical assessment shall be binding on both parties.[48] Thus, the complaint is dismissible for being premature, and the opinion of the company-designated physician becomes controlling.[49] The CA further noted that the company-designated physician timely issued a final disability grading on April 11, 2013, or 120 days from the date of the commencement of Pastrana's treatment. Based on the foregoing, the CA held that Pastrana 's disability is only partial, and that he is only entitled to disability benefits corresponding to Grade 11 disability rating in the amount of $7,465.00.[50] Hence, this Petition.[51] Pastrana invites the Court to revisit a piece of evidence — the April 11, 2013 medical assessment issued by the company-designated physician — which he claims was neither presented nor furnished to him at the time of the discontinuation of his treatment.[52] He contends that he was only verbally advised by the companydesignated physician on April 2, 2013 that he is fit to return to his sea duties, and was later on offered disability benefits amounting to $7,000.00.[53] At any rate, Pastrana argues that the medical assessment dated April 11, 2013 is not valid and binding for it lacked any categorical statement as to his fitness to return to work, and it failed to comply with guidelines on the assessment of seafarers issued by the Department of Health and the International Labor Organization.[54] Thus, in effect, there is failure to issue a final medical assessment within the periods provided by law.[55] It also follows that he is under no obligation to comply with the conflict-resolution procedure under https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66257 4/14