8/23/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly protect his rights and interests. Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the same was denied by the Panel in a Resolution[44] dated March 24, 2014. On August 10, 2015, the CA rendered a Decision,[45] the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 5 November 2013 and the Resolution of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) - National Capital Region (NCR), Intramuros, Manila, are hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION in that petitioners are hereby ordered to pay respondent the legal interest of 12% per annum of the total monetary awards, computed from [the] date of private respondent's repatriation or on May 18, 2012 until finality of judgment, and 6% per annum from finality of judgment until their full satisfaction. SO ORDERED.[46] Like the Panel, the CA held that respondent was able to establish the work connection of his multiple disabilities to his daily duties as Chief Cook on board M/V New Hayatsuki taking into account the nature of his work, the daily working conditions while on sea duty and his additional strenuous activities of pushing, pulling, lifting, carrying, loading and unloading of heavy materials, provisions and cargoes. Since his condition was shown to be work-related, the same is compensable. While it may be true that respondent was already operated on to address his varicocoele, bilateral and was financially assisted by the petitioners in his operation, petitioners still remained liable to the respondent because he still continues to suffer numbing pain on his back, cannot resume his sea duties, is unable to perform tasks producing stress on his back and is unable to perform even his customary work. The CA also found not worthy of credence the fit-to-work assessment of respondent by the company-designated physician in light of the opposing medical opinions of Drs. Cortes and Magtira which were supported not only by the present state of the respondent, but also by diagnostic tests and procedures and reasonable findings. The appellate court also took into account that respondent had been working for the petitioners for almost a decade. Since respondent was unfit to work and unable to resume work at his previous occupation and in any capacity, and was unable to perform his job as a Chief Cook for more than 120 days, the CA held that respondent was permanently and totally disabled and was properly assessed to be suffering from a Grade 1 disability. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied it in its February 29, 2016 Resolution.[47] Hence, this petition. The Issues elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65134 7/12