8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly However, instead of such e-mail, petitioners received a summons from the NLRC. Such actuations of respondent's counsel indicate his lack of genuine intention to comply with the Third-Physician Rule under the POEA-SEC.[28] Ruling of the Labor Arbiter In his Decision,[29] dated April 19, 2016, Labor Arbiter Thomas T. Que, Jr. (LA Que) said that while respondent failed to seek the opinion of the third doctor, the stipulations in the employment contract and CBA are merely permissive and not mandatory, hence the use of the word "may." Moreover, with his disability still subsisting, respondent acted within his rights in instituting the complaint against petitioners.[30] On the issue of whether respondent's heart ailment was work-related, LA Que opined that their liability for compensation was impliedly admitted by petitioners when they provided him with medical treatment and paid his sickness allowance. Such continued medical treatment and payment of sickness allowance was indicative of petitioners' assessment that respondent's illness did, in fact, arise in the course of and/or was aggravated by the conditions of his employment.[31] LA Que further ruled that respondent's cardiovascular disease should be deemed accidental because not all fitters end up with such condition. This entitles respondent to the maximum amount provided in the CBA. The findings of the company-designated physician were not given credence for being ambiguous. Considering that there was no definite assessment of respondent's fitness to work and his medical conditions remained unresolved, LA Que concluded that he was already deemed totally and permanently disabled.[32] The dispositive portion of the LA's decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding Complainant entitled to his claim for total and permanent disability benefits and attorney's fees in the respective amounts of US $95,949 and $9,594.90 and, correspondingly, holding Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the same. All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[33] Ruling of the NLRC Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, which reversed the LA's ruling in its September 28, 2016 Decision. The NLRC disagreed with the LA's finding that respondent's illness was work-related considering that he failed to present substantial evidence that would show the causal connection between his work as a fitter and his heart disease. Citing medical references, the NLRC noted that aortic valve stenosis could be caused by genetics, aging, and childhood rheumatic disease and may be aggravated by lifestyle choices. These causes being natural, the illness could not have been accidental. As to Dr. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65335 4/24