5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly This prompted Toliongco to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals claiming that the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed decision. He insisted that his PTSD was a work-related illness incurred while aboard the vessel. Citing the Revised PreEmployment Medical Exam Standards for Seafarers, he claimed that his mental state "permanently and totally incapacitated him" from doing his job. For this reason, he should be entitled to disability benefits, moral and exemplary damages.[54] The Court of Appeals dismissed Toliongco's petition for lack of merit and ruled that the "NLRC did not exercise its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility."[55] According to the Court of Appeals, Toliongco's disability benefits cannot be granted because he failed to conform with the "mandatory 3-day medical examination deadline" under Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC.[56]Similarly, he also failed to give a written notice within three (3) days from his arrival to inform the respondents of his inability to report to their office.[57] It also held that Toliongco failed to prove, through substantial evidence, the correlation between his illness and his work.[58] It ruled that a seafarer suffering from a mental disease will only be remunerated when "it was due to a traumatic injury to the head, which is clearly absent in this case." [59] The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition filed by petitioner/complainant is DENIED. The Decision dated 28 August 2015 and 30 September 2015 that were issued by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.[60] On March 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals denied Toliongco's Motion for Reconsideration. [61] Hence, this Petition for Review.[62] On June 7, 2017, this Court allowed petitioner to litigate as an indigent litigant and required respondents to file their comment.[63] Respondents filed their Comment on July 14, 2017.[64] On August 3, 2017, Petitioner filed a Reply with Motion to Admit[65] which this Court granted in its October 2, 2017 Resolution.[66] Petitioner argues that he suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD as a consequence of the incident that happened onboard the M/V Mineral Water.[67] He claims that this condition made it physically impossible for him to comply with the 3https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66544 6/25