5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly CA sustained the denial of sickness allowance because Constantino had already been paid. It likewise denied his claim for damages for lack of basis. But the appellate upheld the grant of attorney’s fees to him considering that he was compelled to litigate to enforce his rights. The petitioners moved for, but failed to secure, a reconsideration of the CA decision. The Petition The petitioners are now before the Court to seek the reversal of the CA rulings on grounds that the court gravely erred when it set aside the NLRC’s denial of Constantino’s claim for disability benefits and awarded him permanent partial disability compensation, plus attorney’s fees. They submit that the evidence on record supports their position that Constantino is not entitled to his claim and, for this reason, he is likewise not entitled to attorney’s fees. They bewail the CA’s reliance on Dr. Almeda’s conclusion that Constantino suffered from a permanent partial disability with a Grade 11 impediment when he examined him only once and without any indication that the doctor subjected Constantino to any treatment at all. The petitioners decry the appellate court’s refusal to give any weight to the evidence they submitted consisting of (1) medical reports which chronicled the medical management of Constantino’s condition undertaken by their accredited doctors and, (2) the certificate of fitness for work executed by Constantino himself. They are at a loss, they submit, how the CA could have arrived at its sweeping conclusions. On the award of attorney’s fees, the petitioners maintain that the CA decision in favor of Constantino is not a sufficient reason for the award. They argue that their refusal to pay disability compensation to Constantino was based on sound medical advice and the provisions of the POEA-SEC. They believe their refusal to grant Constantino’s disability claim cannot be said to be in bad faith as to entitle him to attorney’s fees. The Case for Constantino By way of his Comment[18] and Memorandum,[19] Constantino asks the Court that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit, contending that the CA correctly disregarded the fit-to-work declaration of Dr. Lim, the company-designated physician, because “he is not a specialist in the field of orthopedics and he is therefore not specially trained to examine and treat the respondent’s injury;”[20] whereas, his chosen physician, Dr. Almeda, “is a specialist in occupational medicine and orthopedics and arthroscopic and ankle surgery x x x” and “is in a better position to examine and evaluate the injury of the respondent.”[21] He adds that the company-designated physician does not have the exclusive authority to determine the disability of the seafarer as he is, “more often than not, bias (sic) in favor of their (sic) employer.”[22] Lastly, Constantino maintains that as he was unable to perform his customary work for more than five months or for more than 120 days (from April 25, 2002 when he was repatriated to October 2, 2002 when he was declared fit to work by Dr. Lim), he should be considered as suffering from permanent disability. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57526 4/9