1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly entitled to disability benefits.[14] The dispositive portion of the LA Decision states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, dismissing this case for lack of merit. judgment is hereby rendered SO ORDERED.[15] NLRC Resolution The NLRC affirmed the LA Decision but directed the payment of financial assistance in the amount of USD7,000.00.[16] The NLRC found that the findings of the companydesignated physician were more credible than that of the seafarer's physician and that petitioner failed to prove his entitlement to permanent and total disability benefits.[17] Nonetheless, the NLRC awarded financial assistance as an equitable concession.[18] The dispositive portion of the NLRC Resolution states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED and the Decision dated 17 February 2015 is AFFIRMED with the modification directing respondents-appellees jointly and severally liable to pay financial assistance to complainant-appellant in the amount of USD7,000.00 in Philippine Peso equivalent at the time of payment. SO ORDERED.[19] CA Resolution In the assailed CA Resolution, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.[20] The CA ruled that the LA and the NLRC already conducted a painstaking review of the evidence submitted by the parties and concluded that petitioner's injury in his knee was only partial and already addressed and cured.[21] The CA also ruled that when the factual findings of the NLRC coincide with that of the LA, and both of which are supported by substantial evidence, these are accorded great respect and finality.[22] The CA ruled that a petition for certiorari is limited to the correction of errors of jurisdiction and does not include the correction of the NLRC's evaluation of evidence. [23] The inquiry is limited whether the NLRC acted in excess of jurisdiction or where it exercised its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[24] The CA found that the NLRC's act of sustaining the LA Decision could not be considered a grave abuse of discretion that would warrant the issuance of a writ of certiorari.[25] The dispositive portion of the CA Resolution states: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65636 3/10