G. R. No. 179177 15 of 29 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179177.htm their counsel, and the reglementary period for filing an appeal shall be reckoned from the date of such service. Not until respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS were served notice of the 23 July 2003 Decision of the Labor Arbiter, the reglementary period for them to appeal the same to the NLRC had not yet commenced. The 10-day reglementary period to appeal to the NLRC only started to run on 14 October 2003, when Atty. Ng, counsel for respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS, was able to personally secure a copy of the Labor Arbiters Decision dated 23 July 2003. Therefore, the Joint Appeal Memorandum, filed by respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS on 20 October 2003, just six days after receiving notice and copy of the appealed Decision of the Labor Arbiter, was not filed belatedly. And secondly, as for petitioner Nisdas contention of non-perfection of the appeal of respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS for failure of the latter two to post the appeal bond, the Court of Appeals succinctly addressed the same as follows: It is not disputed that the respondents Memorandum of Appeal had already been perfected, with the filing of the requisite appeal bond within the 10-day mandatory period, when the Memorandum of the NLRC concerning the disaccreditation of Acropolis Central Guaranty Corporation, which has the effect of rendering the appeals with bond posted by the said company not perfected, was released. But, just like what the NLRC Chair stated in his letter dated February 10, 2004, the said Memorandum should be applied prospectively. [57] Notwithstanding the foregoing, we are of the view that the second, more critical, error imputed by petitioner Nisda against the Court of Appeals, concerning the denial of his right to disability benefits, must be sustained given the factual milieu of the present case. Sifting through the evidence on record, we are ineluctably convinced that the conclusion of the NLRC and the appellate court, that petitioner Nisdas heart condition is non-compensable, rests on rather shaky foundation. In his Petition, petitioner Nisda points out that [he] was certified by the Dar al Taafi Medical Services Co. Ltd. [o]n May 5, 2002 which was within the term or duration of his contract of his POEA approved contract of employment that was then set to expire on May 2, 2002 with a medical complaint of pain in his parascapular region of 6 months duration already way unto his consummated employment service of his contract of employment with paresthesia and numbness of both upper limbs. [58] He insists further that, [t]his very medical certification by itself of the Saudi Hospital substantiates the causative [59] circumstance leading to petitioners permanent total disability of heart ailment x x x. 1/28/2016 1:07 PM