1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly company-designated physician and the seafarer's doctor because they still had to be weighed and considered were inconclusive by the labor tribunals. [22] Further, the NLRC ruled that the company-designated physician's assessment was not accurate and precise, pointing out that the company-designated physician even admitted in the Final Medical Report that Buico was not restored to his previous condition, hence, his disability should therefore be considered as total and permanent[23] The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of [Buico] is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 30, 2015 is hereby MODIFIED in that [petitioners] are hereby ORDERED to solidarily pay [Buico] the amount of US$60,000 as permanent and total disability compensation plus 10% thereof as attorney's fees. SO ORDERED[24] In a Resolution[25] dated January 21, 2016, the NLRC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition with the CA. The Ruling of the CA In a Decision[26] dated October 13, 2016, the CA denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC rulings finding Buico entitled to permanent and total disability benefits. The CA held that the Disability Grading given by the company-designated physician was not accurate and precise as to Buico's actual medical condition.[27] Because the company-designated physician failed to arrive at a definite assessment of Buico's fitness or disability within the statutory periods, the CA ruled that Buico should be deemed totally and permanently disabled and entitled to the corresponding disability benefit.[28] Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[29] but this was denied by the CA in a Resolution[30] dated March 31, 2017. Aggrieved, petitioners filed the instant Petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Court. On July 31, 2017, the Court issued a Resolution[31] requiring Buico to file a Comment on the instant Petition. Subsequently, in a July 9, 2018 Resolution,[32] the Court noted that Buico's counsel, Atty. Vicenzo Nonato M. Taggueg (Atty. Taggueg), failed to file a Comment on the Petition and resolved to require Atty. Taggueg to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such failure and to comply with the July 31, 2017 Resolution. On March 4, 2019, the Court again issued a Resolution[33] which required the filing of a comment and imposed a fine of P1,000.00 'upon Atty. Taggueg for his failure to comply with the show cause resolution. Since the Court has not received Buico's Comment despite the issued Resolutions requiring the filing of the same, the Court shall dispense with the filing of the Comment and now resolve the controversy based on the Petition and the existing https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65874 3/10