6/5/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Aggrieved, petitioners filed an appeal[18] to the NLRC.
The NLRC Ruling
In a Decision[19] dated December 15, 2011, the NLRC reversed and set aside the
appealed LA decision and instead, dismissed respondent's complaint.
It held that the medical certificate of the independent physician, Dr. Jacinto, in support
of respondent's claim for permanent total disability benefits cannot prevail over the
medical reports of the company-designated physicians who actually treated him. It
added that respondent's injury had clearly healed, considering that he admittedly
signed the certificate of fitness to work, adding too that his doubts about his true
medical condition at the time he was promised redeployment was not proof that he was
merely forced to sign the same.[20]
Respondent moved for reconsideration,[21] but was denied in a Resolution[22] dated
June 27, 2012, prompting the filing of a petition for certiorari[23] before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision[24] dated October 25, 2013, the CA granted the certiorari petition and
reinstated the LA's Decision dated April 7, 2011.
It ruled that respondent was entitled to full permanent total disability benefits,
considering that a period of more than 120 days had elapsed before the companydesignated physicians made their findings, and that respondent was no longer
redeployed by petitioners despite the finding of fitness to work by the companydesignated physicians. In this relation, it further observed that the award of said
benefits was not based on the findings of respondent's physician but rather on the
number of days that he has been unfit to work.
Dissatisfied, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration[25] which was, however,
denied in a Resolution[26] dated April 7, 2014; hence, this petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA committed grave
error in awarding respondent permanent total disability benefits.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
To justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the petitioner must
satisfactorily show that the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the
discretion conferred upon it. Grave abuse of discretion connotes a capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment, done in a despotic manner by reason of passion or
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61201
3/13