4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In his Comment,[16] Solacito maintains that the NLRC Decision had already become final and executory — and, therefore, immutable — despite the pendency of the petition for certiorari before the CA. Solacito also argues that the petition for certiorari before the CA should have been deemed abandoned or rendered moot and academic following petitioners' voluntary settlement of the judgment award during the preexecution proceedings. Thus, the CA erred in giving due course to the petition and modifying the NLRC Decision. This contention is erroneous. Under the Labor Code, the decision of the NLRC shall become final and executory after 10 days from notice if no appeal is taken therefrom within said period.[17] It is settled that the aggrieved party may still seek reconsideration of the decision of the NLRC, and then seasonably avail itself of the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65.[18] Here, as shown by the records, petitioners timely filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC Decision and a petition for certiorari. Thus, the NLRC Decision is not yet immutable. There is also no basis for the proposition that petitioners should be deemed to have abandoned their petition before the CA. There is no showing that the payment made by petitioners to Solacito was by virtue of a settlement and in consideration of the termination of the case. On the contrary, records bear out that such payment was made pursuant to a writ of execution.[19] Indeed, under the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, the filing of a petition for certiorari with the CA shall not stay the execution of the assailed decision unless a restraining order is issued by the CA.[20] Thus, the CA did not err in giving due course to the petition for certiorari. Now, on the substantive issues. While petitioners agreed with the factual findings of the CA respecting the probative value of the medical assessment of the company-designated physicians vis-à-vis that of the private physician, petitioners challenged the permanent and partial disability benefits awarded by the CA to Solacito. Petitioners insisted that Solacito is not suffering from any disability, as shown by the Medical Report dated January 7, 2010 and Solacito's subsequent re-deployment, and therefore, not entitled to any disability benefits. The Court finds the Petition to be impressed with merit. In labor cases, a Rule 45 petition is limited to reviewing whether the CA correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion and deciding other jurisdictional errors of the NLRC.[21] Here, the CA correctly found grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when it affirmed the ruling of the LA and upheld the medical assessment issued by Solacito's personal physician over the one issued by the company-designated physicians. However, the CA erred in independently giving a disability rating to Solacito and awarding partial and permanent disability benefits. Complaint filed prematurely https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66216 6/14