been established by substantial evidence that petitioner was signed off from the vessel on 15 May 2004 following the expiration of his employment contract and was repatriated to the Philippines on 19 May 2004; during his employment on board M/V  Pax Phoenix, there was no incident; and upon his arrival in the Philippines, he made no report to private respondents of any ailment or injury allegedly suffered on board said vessel.     The dispositive portion of the assailed decision[20] of the Court of Appeals reads:   WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.  No costs.   The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was likewise denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 25 September 2008.[21]  Hence, this petition is based on the following grounds:   I.  THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERREED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY REPORTING REQUIREMENT, CONTRARY TO FACTS, EVIDENCE AND PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE.   II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS BLATANTLY MISAPPLIED SEC. 20 (B) OF THE POEA SEC. WHEN IT HELD THAT IT IS THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN WHO MUST PROCLAIM THAT THE SEAMAN SUFFERED FROM PERMANENT DISABILITY, CONTRARY TO PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE.   III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS BLATANTLY MISAAPLIED SEC. 20 (B) OF THE POEA SEC. WHEN IT DENIED THE PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER WAS REPATRIATED DUE TO A FINISHED CONTRACT.   IV. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT REQUIRED PETITIONER TO PRESENT CONCRETE PROOF THAT HE ACQUIRED OR CONTRACTED THE INJURY OR ILLNESS, CONTRARY TO PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE.   V.  PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS.   VI. PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES.[22]