5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The decision dated April 30, 2007 of Labor Arbiter Donato G. Quinto, Jr. in NLRC-NCR-OFW 06-02-00543-00 is hereby REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.[24] The CA held that respondent suffered permanent disability as a result of Dr. Cruz’s failure to make a definite assessment of his condition within the statutory 120-day period prescribed under the labor laws,[25] or from September 18, 2005 – date of repatriation – up to April 19, 2006, or date of last medical intervention, or a total of 213 days. The CA held further that as early as September 2005, respondent was declared unfit for duty by a company-designated physician in Tianjin, China, and later on, after tests were conducted, respondent was diagnosed with coronary artery atherosclerosis and severe three-vessel coronary artery disease; thus, respondent suffered a serious occupational disease that prevented his further deployment as seaman. The CA added that respondent’s illness was work-related, and can be attributed to the conditions he was working under as able seaman; he was exposed and subjected to stress and pressures at work which, after six months, resulted in his experiencing chest pain, fatigue and difficulty in breathing – and eventually, a diagnosis of coronary heart disease. The CA noted further that even during the pendency of the labor case before the Labor Arbiter, Dr. Cruz did not render a final assessment of respondent’s condition; as a result, the diagnosis of the company-designated physician in Gangyou Hospital in Tianjin, China that respondent was unfit for duty has not been overturned. Thus, the CA concluded that since Dr. Cruz failed to make a definite assessment of respondent’s fitness or disability within the statutory 240-day period – and even thereafter, there can be no other conclusion than that respondent suffered permanent total disability. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[26] but the CA denied the same in its July 21, 2010 Resolution. Hence, the present Petition. Issues Petitioners submit that – THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION) ORDERING THE DISMISSAL OF THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED LABOR COMPLAINT FINDS AMPLE SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, IN THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE POEA STANDARD CONTRACT, AND IN APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, IN ITS QUESTIONED DECISION PROMULGATED ON 20 APRIL 2010 AND RESOLUTION PROMULGATED ON 21 elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56669 7/14