6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The CA granted the respondents' petition and reinstated the LA's ruling in its Decision dated June 10, 2015, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The August 29, 2014 Decision and the October 22, 2014 Resolution of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The April 28, 2014 Decision of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED. In reversing the NLRC, the appellate court held that the 240-day period for assessing the degree of disability only applies to the company-designated doctor, and not to the third doctor. It is only upon the company-designated doctor's failure to render a final assessment of petitioner's condition within 240 days from repatriation that he will be considered permanently and totally disabled and, hence, entitled to maximum disability benefit In petitioner's case, the company-designated doctor was able to make a determination of his disability within the 240-day period; hence, he is not considered as totally and permanently disabled despite the opinion of the third doctor having been rendered after the lapse of 240 days from repatriation. The CA further added that the extent of disability, whether total or partial, is determined, not by the number of days that petitioner could not work, but by the disability grading the doctor recognizes based on his resulting incapacity to work and earn his wages. Thus, the mere fact that petitioner was incapacitated to work for a period exceeding 120 days does not automatically entitle him to total and permanent disability benefits. Concomitantly, the CA stressed that the recommendation of Dr. Bathan of Grade 9 disability and his determination that the latter's disability is partial and not total are binding on the parties. Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the adverted decision, but the CA denied the same in its Resolution dated February 10, 2016. Hence, this petition. Issues Petitioner anchors his plea for the reversal of the assailed Decision on the following issues: I. WHETHER OR NOT THE CA COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN AWARDING A PARTIAL DISABILITY OF GRADE 9 TO PETITIONER; AND elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62831 4/16