6/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit. Manila, February 19, 2016. SO ORDERED."[22] Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the Decision, but the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators denied it in a Resolution dated May 20, 2016. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review (under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court) with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Retraining Order[23] with the CA. Ruling of the CA In the petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court with the CA, petitioners raised the following grounds for the latter's consideration, to wit: I. WHETHER THE [PANEL OF VOLUNTARY ARBITRATORS] ERRED IN AWARDING DISABILITY BENEFITS TO RESPONDENT IN THE AMOUNT OF US$159,914.00; and II. WHETHER THE [PANEL OF VOLUNTARY ARBITRATORS] ERRED IN AWARDING SICKNESS ALLOWANCES, AND 10% OF THE TOTAL JUDGMENT AWARD AS AND FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES.[24] On March 7, 2017, the CA rendered the assailed Decision[25] affirming the findings of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators that respondent should be considered as permanently and totally disabled. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered and subject to the above disquisitions, the petition is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated February 19, 2016 and Resolution dated May 20, 2016 of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators in MVA-091-RCMB-NCR-07102-07-2015 are accordingly AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION such that petitioners are now ordered to pay respondent Jose Elizalde B. Zanoria the amount of US$ 60,000.00 (US$ 50,000 x 120%) payable in its peso equivalent at the time of payment as permanent disability benefits instead of US$159,914.00. The rest of the February 19, 2016 Decision stands. SO ORDERED.[26] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66746 5/11