5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly NLRC that Hipe was repatriated due to the completion/expiration of his six-month employment contract, not for medical reasons, hence, effectively debunking Hipe’s contention that he is entitled to permanent disability compensation. It found that Hipe remained in the ship two (2) months after the completion of his employment contract because the ship has not reached any port and such fact should not be construed to mean that his contract was extended.[52] Aggrieved, Hipe filed a motion for reconsideration,[53] alleging that the CA has misappreciated the facts and misinterpreted the applicable laws in not finding that (a) his original six-month employment contract was in fact extended, and (b) the injury sustained during such period was compensable.[54] The CA resolved to hear the parties in an oral argument on the issue of whether or not Hipe was repatriated on account of injuries sustained while on board the vessel or on account of expiration of contract.[55] After the parties were heard and the required memoranda were filed, the CA issued an Amended Decision[56] dated May 2, 2012 setting aside its January 31, 2011 Decision and the NLRC’s March 17, 2010 Decision and June 22, 2010 Resolution. In effect, the LA’s May 29, 2009 Decision granting Hipe’s claim for permanent disability compensation, sick wages, damages and attorney’s fees was reinstated. The CA found that while Hipe’s employment contract shows that he was indeed employed as plumber for a six-month period, the addendum thereto provides for “possible extension of up to 10 months, at the company’s discretion.”[57] Hipe was, thus, still under the employ of respondents when he sustained his injury.[58] Hence, the referral to the company-designated physician after his repatriation and the subsequent fit-to-work certification issued in his favor support the claim that he was medically repatriated.[59] Accordingly, the CA declared that Hipe was entitled to his “earned wages and benefits,” including permanent disability benefits.[60] Dissatisfied, respondents filed a motion for reconsideration[61] which was, however, denied in a Resolution[62] dated December 3, 2012, hence, the instant petition.[63] The Issue Before the Court The essential issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA erred in granting Hipe’s petition for certiorari, thereby setting aside the NLRC Decision dismissing the complaint and adjudging Hipe’s entitlement to permanent disability benefits. The Court’s Ruling The petition is meritorious. To justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the petitioner must satisfactorily show that the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the discretion conferred upon it. Grave abuse of discretion connotes a capricious and elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58331 4/12