5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied the same in its September 9, 2011 Resolution. Hence, the present Petition. Issues Petitioners submit the following issues for resolution: 1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious error in law when it disregarded the expert opinion of the company-designated physician that Respondent’s illness is not work-related. 2. Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious error in law when it ruled that Respondent is considered as Cerebro-Vascular accident, and thus compensable, when not all the requisites for the same have been complied with.[21] Petitioners’ Arguments Praying that the assailed CA pronouncements be set aside and that a new judgment be rendered absolving them from the payment of disability benefits and attorney’s fees, petitioners essentially maintain in their Petition and Reply[22] that Bengson’s illness – hypertensive cardio-vascular disease (HCVD) not in failure, CVD infarct left thalamocapsular[23] – is not work-related; that between Bengson’s bare allegations that his exposure to different hazards and the stressful nature of his work were the causes of his illness and Agbayani’s categorical declaration that Bengson’s illness is not work-related, the latter should prevail; that the CA failed to specifically point out the exact unusual and extraordinary physical or mental strain or event which caused respondent’s alleged CVA; and that with Agbayani’s expertise and experience as petitioners’ company-designated physician, his declaration and diagnosis should be given more weight.[24] Respondent’s Arguments In his Comment,[25] respondent counters that the CA finding that his illness is workrelated prevails over Agbayani’s declaration; that it is not required that in order to be entitled to disability benefits, his work should be the sole cause of the growth, development or acceleration of his illness;[26] that Agbayani’s declaration should not be given credence because it is self-serving and biased, favoring petitioners and protecting the latter’s interests; that the opinions of company-designated physicians should not at all times be believed;[27] that he could not have contracted his illness except while working for petitioners on board their vessel; and that since he could no longer return to work, he should thus be paid permanent disability benefits. Our Ruling elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57809 6/13