6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The appellate court rejected the petitioners' submission that there was no evidence that the working conditions on board the Toreador caused or aggravated Suarez's illness. It emphasized that it is enough that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to make a rational mind conclude that Suarez's work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any preexisting condition he might have had.[17] The CA pointed out that in the present case, Suarez was deployed to the petitioners' car ship and "was exposed to heavy equipment" requiring him to exert force that caused his medical condition. It also found credible Suarez's claim that the food served onboard the vessel was extremely unhealthy as it was frozen, fatty and salty. The CA thus believed that Suarez's working environment, as well as his diet onboard the vessel, may have aggravated or contributed to the development of his Hydronephrosis secondary to UJO. The petitioners moved for, but failed to secure, a reconsideration from the CA. The Petition The petitioners now appeal to the Court to set aside the CA rulings on grounds that the appellate court gravely erred in affirming the award to Suarez of (1) US$60,000.00 in disability benefits, despite the declaration of the company-designated physician that he was fit to work and that his illness was not work-related; and (2) attorney's fees, despite the fact that their denial of his claim for disability benefits was based on valid grounds. The petitioners bewail the rejection by the CA of the fit-to-work assessment of the company-designated physician, considering as they point out, that a companydesignated physician's assessment has been upheld in recent decisions[18] of this Court, absent any contrary finding of an independent third physician jointly appointed by the parties. Moreover, they stress that in another recent ruling,[19] the Court clothed the company doctor's assessment with the presumption of regularity and legality and, therefore should be given respect. In the present case, they add, Suarez failed to rebut such presumption by moving for the appointment of a third doctor or by showing that the company doctor's findings are tainted with bias, malice or bad faith. The petitioners insist that Suarez's illness is mainly a genetic abnormality as medical studies show and is therefore not work-related. Further, they contend that the CA erred in upholding the NLRC finding that Suarez is permanently disabled because he was unable to work for more than 120 days. They maintain that the 120-day rule had already been overturned by recent Court rulings[20] and does not apply to Suarez's claim. The company-designated physician, the petitioners argue, assessed Suarez's illness to be non-work-related on January 27, 2011. This assessment notwithstanding, they continued his treatment until he was declared fit to work on May 10, 2011. Considering that Suarez's illness was not work-related and that the company-designated physician elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60072 4/11