6/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Feeling aggrieved, both parties filed their respective partial motions for reconsideration. [27] On July 25, 2017, the CA issued the assailed Resolution[28] denying the motions. Hence, the instant petition. Issues I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AWARDING TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO SICKNESS ALLOWANCES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. III. PETITIONERS HAVE RECENTLY DISCOVERED THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT BOARDED A SUBSEQUENT OCEAN-­GOING VESSEL WITH ANOTHER EMPLOYER DESPITE A PENDING CLAIM FOR TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS.[29] Ruling of the Court The Court denies the petition for failure of the petitioners to show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged Decision dated March 7, 2017 and the Resolution dated July 25, 2017. The issue of whether the CA erred in upholding the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators' findings that respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney's fees is clearly factual in nature. As such, this cannot be entertained in a Rule 45 petition where the Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law that might have been committed by the courts below.[30] Thus, the petition should be denied in the absence of any exceptional circumstances[31] as to merit the Court's review of factual questions that have already been settled by both the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and the CA. The petition for review on certiorari likewise shows that petitioners are still hinging on the same arguments, to wit: (1) that the partial disability assessment Grade 10 as determined by the company-designated physician should be upheld by the CA;[32] (2) that the proper procedure under the POEA-SEC to resolve conflicting medical assessments is to refer the matter to a neutral third doctor which was not complied with or refused by the respondent;[33] thus, it is only the company-designated https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66746 6/11