8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Respondent's Arguments In his Comment, respondent asserts that the CA correctly reinstated the LA's award which is in accord with the POEA-SEC, as interpreted by the Court in its recent decisions. Having been cleared as fit to work in his PEME, it is clear that respondent only suffered the illness while on board the vessel, for which he was medically repatriated. The company-designated physician did not categorically state that respondent's illness is work-aggravated; hence, the findings of Dr. Vicaldo that his condition is work-aggravated should prevail.[45] Respondent argues that since petitioners did not respond to his request for referral to a third doctor, he is then deemed totally and permanently disabled in contemplation of law, as held in several cases. Further, as held in Eyana v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., et al.,[46] if the injuries with a disability grading from 2 to 14 (partial and permanent) would incapacitate a person for more than 120 or 240 days, depending on the need for further medical treatment, then the patient is deemed totally and permanently disabled.[47] Similarly, in this case, respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, having been given a grade 6 disability rating by Dr. Vicaldo.[48] In his Rejoinder to Petitioners' Reply, respondent insists that the CA correctly held that his heart disease, though pre-existing or congenital, was work-aggravated. He also points out that the final report of the company-designated physician was issued to Ms. Endaya and not to respondent. As to the meeting conducted by representatives of the manning agency, respondent said that, not being doctors, their statements are hearsay, and such does not sufficiently comply with the employer's obligation to issue a definite assessment of his illness and fitness to work made by the company-designated physician.[49] THE COURT'S RULING The petition is meritorious. Whether or not respondent's illness is compensable is essentially a factual issue.[50] Issues of facts may not be raised under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because this Court is not a trier of facts. It is not to re-examine and assess the evidence on record, whether testimonial or documentary.[51] Among the recognized exceptions[52] to said rule, as in the present case, is where the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals are inconsistent with that of the NLRC. While the LA and the CA found respondent's cardiovascular disease as work-related and hence compensable, the NLRC declared that such ailment is neither work-related nor a result of an accident. The entitlement of overseas seafarers to disability benefits is a matter governed, not only by medical findings, but also by law and contract.[53] The pertinent statutory provisions are Articles 191 to 193 under Chapter VI (Disability Benefits) of the Labor https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65335 9/24