9/15/21, 8:01 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS, REVERSIBLE AND GROSS ERROR OF LAW BASED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. In annulling the judgment of the NLRC and allowing the claim of the Respondent to prosper notwithstanding incontrovertible evidence that he has no cause of action for permanent total disability benefits under the POEA SEC at the time that he filed the complaint against the Petitioners. 2. In sustaining the Labor Arbiter's award of USD60,000.00 as permanent total disability benefits. 3. In failing to include in the dispositive portion of the Decision its ruling on off-setting thereby leaving room for debate, dispute and interpretation on the proper execution of the judgment. 4. In blindly affirming the Labor Arbiter's award of attorney's fees despite lack of reasonable ground to award the same.[28] Petitioners submit that prior to his filing of the complaint before the Labor Arbiter on June 24, 2013, respondent had already interposed a claim for recovery before the Danish Shipowner Accident Insurance Association. This rendered the complaint before the LA premature.[29] Likewise, petitioners averred that on the 234th day or on March 1, 2013, the companydesignated physician advised respondent to continue further treatment. However, respondent did not comply with the directive. Thus, the CA should have limited the Grade 10 interim disability rating of the company-designated physician.[30] At any rate, petitioners argue that the CBA provides for the offsetting of the amount that a seafarer is entitled to receive under the Danish Industrial Injuries and the POEA-SEC. As the amount awarded by the NBII and paid for by petitioners had already exceeded the maximum disability benefit payable which is USD60,000.00, there was no longer any obligation on the part of petitioners to compensate the respondent.[31] In his Comment,[32] respondent argues that disability should be judged not on its "medical significance but on the loss of earning capacity." In this case, respondent avers that his condition clearly shows that he can no longer work as a seafarer. As such, he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.[33] In their Reply,[34] petitioners essentially reiterated their arguments in their petition for review. The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. Preliminarily, respondent's presented in applicable in illness. it must be stated that there is no issue as to the compensability of illness as the parties do not dispute that it is work-related. The issues this petition whether or not the parties' CBA remains effective and resolving this controversy and the disability grading of respondent's https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/67062 4/10