6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly compared to just one (1) day of examination by Dr. Jacinto. For said reason, the CA concluded that petitioner was no longer entitled to disability benefits when he was declared fit to work by the company-designated physicians. Hence, this petition. Petitioner charges that the CA “abused its discretion and committed a palpable error” in reversing the findings of the LA. According to him, the findings of the LA, being a trier of facts, should be “given high regard and respect even finality on appeal.”[25] In asserting his right to claim disability compensation, petitioner argues that because of the injury to his right leg, he continues to experience difficulty in walking, standing and “is incapacitated to perform the usual physical, strenuous and stressful activities which are the usual function of seafarers on board a vessel.”[26] For him, the findings of Dr. Jacinto should have been given weight because the said doctor examined and treated him as an independent orthopedic medical specialist who had no special relationship with him, other than that of doctor-patient. He ascribes bias to the companydesignated physicians considering that they regularly receive retainer fees from the respondents. Lastly, petitioner imputes bad faith on the part of the respondents claiming that during the mediation proceedings before the CA, the parties, upon the initiative of the respondents, agreed to settle the case for the amount of $35,000.00. The hearing was set on July 20, 2013 for the settlement, but the respondents, without any justifiable reason, did not comply. Petitioner, in the alternative, prays for the enforcement of the settlement agreement.[27] Position of the Respondents For their part, the respondents counter that petitioner merely suffered a bruise while on board the M/V Ibis Arrow for which he was accorded extensive treatment until he was declared fit to work. According to the respondents, considering that the medical documents submitted would show that he was already declared fit to work, he must have fractured his right fibula sometime in April of 2010, that is, after his employment with them. They posit that his claim for permanent disability should be dismissed.[28] As for the alleged settlement in the CA, the respondents contend that they simply withdrew their offer to petitioner because he misrepresented himself as recuperating in his hometown in Iloilo during the mediation proceedings in the CA when all the while he was actually abroad working as a seafarer under the Imperial Victory Shipping Agency (Imperial). They claimed that the evidence would show that the pre-employment medical examinations conducted on petitioner showed that he was fit to work; and in fact had already served two (2) employment contracts with Imperial. Furthermore, the respondents found out that he also filed a claim against Imperial for disability benefits. [29] The Court’s Ruling elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58873 4/13