Respondent alleged that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied Arbit the full cost of his repatriation despite the fact that he disembarked for medical reasons. She also contended that petitioner should be held liable for the full cost of Arbits medical and hospital expenses since the POEA Standard Employment Contract provides no restriction on seeking medical attention from hospitals not accredited by a seafarers employer. Lastly, she averred that the NLRC erred in not awarding her husband disability benefits due to misrepresentation. The Court of Appeals found the petition meritorious and ordered petitioner to pay Arbit permanent total disability compensation and to reimburse him for the full cost of his repatriation, the transportation cost of his reliever and full medical and hospital expenses. The appellate court likewise affirmed the award of the NLRC on the payment of unpaid salaries and other benefits, sickwage allowance, and attorneys fees. Petitioner simultaneously filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion [t]o Inhibit the Ponente and the Division Members of the Honorable Third Division From Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration. It was allegedly alarmed at the unusual haste by which the case was decided.[17] In its assailed Resolution,[18] the Special Third Division denied both Motions. Hence, this appeal. Petitioner raises the following issues: 1. THE DECISION OF THE CAS THIRD DIVISION WAS RENDERED WITH UNUSUAL, EXTRAORDINARY HASTE[.] 2. THE DECISION IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE NLRC; THE HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS BASED ITS DECISION ONLY ON THE FACTUAL NARRATION OF RESPONDENT, TOTALLY DISREGARDING THAT OF PETITIONERS[.] 3. NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN NLRC DENIED REIMBURSEMENT OF DECEASEDS REPATRIATION COST[.] 4. THE NLRC DID NOT GRAVELY ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED RESPONDENT THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE DECEASEDS MEDICAL EXPENSES AND SICKWAGE ALLOWANCE[.] 5. [THE] NLRC NEVER ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE DISABILITY BENEFITS CLAIMS OF RESPONDENT[.][19] We shall resolve the issues in seriatim. First. Petitioner is intrigued that the members of the Third Division of the appellate court were able to render the assailed Decision twenty (20) days after respondent moved to submit the case for decision.[20] It contends that the unusual speedy resolution of the case might have caused the appellate court to overlook material facts in the records. This matter was sufficiently explained by the appellate court in its Resolution[21] where the ponente[22] presented his record re the disposition of cases assigned to him. He explained that his speedy resolution of cases and average monthly