6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly After respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC, they elevated the case to the CA. On November 19, 2014, the CA reversed the Decision of the NLRC and reinstated the Decision of the Labor Arbiter, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated July 16, 2012 and the Resolution dated August 31, 2012 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)-2nd Division in LAC NO. 05-000486-12 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated April 27, 2012 of the Labor Arbiter in NLRCNCR-OFW (M) 12-19022-11 is hereby REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.[4] Hence, the present petition wherein the petitioner assigns the following errors: The Honorable Court of Appeals committed REVERSIBLE ERROR CONTRARY TO EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE in promulgating the assailed decision and resolution I. WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS II. WHEN IT SOLELY GAVE CREDENCE TO THE CERTIFICATION OF THE COMPANY PHYSICIAN WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FINDINGS OF PETITIONER'S DOCTOR OF CHOICE.[5] Petitioner insists that he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits because of his inability to perform his job for more than 120 days, citing a litany of cases decided by this Court. He further argues that the fact that he had been evaluated by respondents' company physicians is substantial compliance with the provision of the "Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers OnBoard Ocean-Going Vessels" imposed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and does not preclude him from seeking medical attention to a physician of his own choice, more so, if the purpose of which is to provide an independent medical assessment of his true condition. According to him, the law does not exclusively vest to the company-designated physician the sole authority to assess and certify the extent of the injury/sickness for purposes of payment of compensation and disability benefits. Lastly, petitioner asserts that he is entitled to the award of damages because the act of respondents in failing to pay what is due him shows utter disregard for public policy to protect labor, which is a clear indication of bad faith and attorney's fees as respondents' act has compelled him to incur expenses to protect his interest. Respondents, on the other hand, in their Comment dated September 3, 2015, contend that the 240-day rule enunciated in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc. and elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63126 3/15