6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On the other hand, Status Maritime Corporation alleges that Eduardo was examined by the company-designated physician on September 24, 2008. His medical history showed that he had been suffering from diabetes mellitus and hypertension since the 1990s.[12] He underwent an electromyography and nerve conduction velocity (EMGNCV) testing, and the results showed that he had diffused “sensimotor polyneuropathy as seen in diabetes mellitus.”[13] orthopedic surgeon.[14] He was also examined by a neurologist and an The company-designated physician noted that the illness was pre-existing.[15] In January 2009, the company-designated physician assessed that Eduardo’s polyneuropathy secondary to diabetes mellitus was not work-related.[16] The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Flor and awarded death benefits, burial expenses, and attorney’s fees.[17] The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents jointly and severally liable: 1) To pay complainant the amount of US$50,000.00, or its equivalent in Philippine Peso at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time of actual payment, representing the death benefits of the late Eduardo P. Dayo; 2) To pay complainants the amount of US$1,000.00, or its equivalent in Philippine Peso at the prevailing rate at the time of actual payment, representing the burial expenses; 3) To pay complainant the amount equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the total judgment award, as and for attorney’s fees; Other monetary claims are dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[18] Status Maritime Corporation appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission.[19] In the Decision dated September 30, 2010, the National Labor Relations Commission First Division reversed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision and held that: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of respondents is GRANTED. Thus, the appealed Decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another one entered DISMISSING the instant complaint for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[20] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59159 2/12

Select target paragraph3