5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding [Narbonita] entitled to pe1manent total disability benefits in the amount of US$60,000.00 and ten percent attorney's fees. All other claims are dismissed tor lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[30] Ruling of the NLRC Upon appeal, the NLRC, like the LA, found no merit in the contention of the petitioners that Narbonita's illness was not work-related considering that: (1) Narbonita's illness arose or was sustained while working on board the vessel; (2) Narbonita was repatriated and underwent arthroscopic knee surgery supervised by the companydesignated physician; and (3) on his subsequent embarkation, Narbonita suffered the same injury that led to his second medical repatriation. It thus affirmed the ruling of the LA, as follows: WHEREFORE, the appeal filed by [petitioners] is DISMISSED. The herein assailed Decision dated August 29, 2014 of [the LA] is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.[31] Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a Resolution[32] dated June 2, 2015. Consequently, the respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA. During its pendency, Narbonita sought the execution of the NLRC Resolutions dated April 10, 2015 and June 2, 2015. On August 13, 2015, petitioners, with the intent of preventing further execution proceedings, paid Narbonita the peso equivalent of US$66,000.00 which is P2,978,646.00 as full and complete satisfaction of the NLRC's judgment award. Such payment was subject to the condition that in case of reversal or modification of the NLRC Decision and Resolution by the CA, Narbonita shall return to petitioners whatever amount may be due and owing.[33] Ruling of the CA The CA, in the herein assailed Resolution dated December 2, 2015, dismissed the petition holding that the challenged resolutions of the NLRC was in accordance with law and prevailing jurisprudence and that no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction can be imputed against the said labor tribunal, viz.: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. With costs. SO ORDERED.[34] Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA in its May 16, 2016 Resolution. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66272 3/9