6/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly and PhP 255,733.87 (divided by forty-three [PhP 43.00 per US Dollar] or FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FORTY-SEVEN and 29/100 U.S. DOLLARS (US$5,947.2993) as reimbursement for medical expenses; or a sub-total amount of USD$97,299.2993, plus ten percent (10%) thereof as attorney's fees, or in the total amount of ONE HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND TWENTYNINE and 23/100 U.S. DOLLARS (US$107,029.23), or its Peso equivalent converted at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time of actual payment. All other claims of the complainant are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Likewise, respondents' counter-claims for damages and attorney's fees are DENIED for utter lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[35] (Emphasis in the original) Aggrieved, respondents filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court with the CA. Ruling of the CA On September 22, 2011, the CA rendered the assailed Decision[36] reversing the NCBM's judgment. The CA held that Alcid's illness is not work-related,[37] thus, he is not entitled to disability benefits under the POEA SEC or the CBA, sickness allowance and reimbursement of medical expenses.[38] Alveolar soft part sarcoma is not included among the occupational diseases in the POEA-SEC. Although it is disputably presumed to be work-related, Alcid failed to prove through substantial evidence that his condition was caused by, or aggravated by the nature of his work as an able seaman.[39] In contrast, the company-designated physician confirmed that Alcid's condition is genetic and therefore, could not have been work-related.[40] This medical assessment effectively rebuts the disputable presumption. Under Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC and Articles 26.2 and 26.4 of the CBA, the disability rating shall be determined by the company-designated physician.[41] If the physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the findings of the company-designated physician, then the opinion of a third doctor shall serve as the final decision between them.[42] Alcid failed to comply with said procedure. Accordingly, the findings of the company-designated physician are entitled to more weight.[43] Added thereto, Alcid's chosen physicians merely conducted a cursory physical examination on him, whereas, the company-designated physician evaluated and closely monitored his condition over a period of time.[44] Moreover, the CA opined that the NCMB erred in awarding disability benefits under Section 26.1 of the CBA. To be entitled thereto, the injury or illness must have been caused by an accident, which is not applicable to Alcid's case.[45] Finally, Alcid is not entitled to attorney's fees since the respondents did not act with bad faith in denying his claim for disability compensation and benefits.[46] The decretal portion of the CA ruling states: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66892 4/23