4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly elsewhere. Labor Arbiter Madjayran J. Ajan gave credence to Serna’s version of events. As company-designated physicians did not issue Serna’s impediment grade, the labor arbiter adopted the grading given by his personal physician. He ruled in this wise: Thus, considering that there was a showing that the illness of complainant was contracted during the term of his employment contract and such illness continues to exist, resulting to complainant’s disability with a grade of 3, Complainant is therefore entitled to 100% compensation in the amount of US$60,000.00 under the reconciled provisions of the TCCC-AMOSUP CBA more particularly the Permanent Medical Unfitness provisions with that of the minimum terms of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. As to the issue of damages, this office finds the claim of complainant unmeritorious for failure to prove that there was malice, bad faith or fraud in respondents’ acts of denying the claim for disability benefits. However, complainant is entitled to ten percent (10%) of the total award as and by way of attorney’s fees.[8] On the petitioners’ appeal, the NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision in toto.[9] The labor tribunal added that Serna’s resignation letter cannot negate his right to disability benefits.[10] The petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the ruling, but their motion was denied. They elevated the case to the CA by way of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The CA Ruling The CA affirmed the award of disability benefits but deleted the award of attorney’s fees.[11] It presented several reasons for its ruling. First. The factual findings of the labor arbiter when affirmed by the NLRC are given great weight and respect when devoid of arbitrariness and supported by substantial evidence.[12] There is substantial evidence that Serna’s illness occurred during the term of his employment. Second. Serna’s Discharge Receipt and Release of Claim does not specifically include an express waiver of disability benefits. Third. While no company-designated physician examined Serna within the required period, this was excused by the petitioners’ failure to designate the said physician to conduct the examination within the said period. Fourth. The attorney’s fees must be deleted as the factual basis therefore was not discussed in the labor arbiter’s and the NLRC’s decisions. The CA denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Hence, the present petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Present Petition elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55380 3/13