4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On appeal by petitioner, the NLRC through a Decision[15] dated February 26, 2004 reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. The NLRC disregarded the certification of fitness to work issued by the company-designated physician since it found petitioner’s subsequent consultations with Drs. Vicaldo and Caja as proof of the severity of petitioner’s illness. The NLRC went on to declare that petitioner’s poor health condition, which required close monitoring and continuous medication, resulted to the impairment of his earning capacity thereby entitling him to disability benefits. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, finding merit in the appeal, the Decision dated 21 January 2003 is hereby reversed and set aside. Complainant is entitled to minimum disability benefits corresponding to his illness of hypertensive cardiovascular disease, ischemic heart disease in the amount of US$3,360.00. SO ORDERED.[16] Not satisfied with the amount of the award, petitioner sought reconsideration averring that he is entitled to a total and permanent disability compensation in the amount of US$60,000.00 or at least US$39,180.00, which is equivalent to the disability grading of 3 as certified by Dr. Caja. He also reiterated his prayer for damages and attorney’s fees. On August 24, 2004, the NLRC issued another Decision[17] wherein it modified its earlier ruling by granting petitioner the amount corresponding to Grade 3 disability rating based on the certification issued by Dr. Caja. He was likewise awarded 5% attorney’s fees but not damages since bad faith is lacking on the part of respondents, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, Our Decision dated 26 February 2004 is hereby MODIFIED in that complainant is declared entitled to $39,180.00 disability benefits, with five (5%) percent attorney’s fees. SO ORDERED.[18] This time, it was respondents’ turn to move for reconsideration but same was denied by the NLRC for lack of merit in its Resolution[19] dated February 28, 2005. Proceedings before the Court of Appeals In their Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Preliminary Injunction[20] before the CA, respondents averred that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting petitioner disability benefits. They argued that the NLRC should not have relied on the certification of Dr. Caja as her evaluation was based solely on hearsay, it being unsupported by any examination done elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/54687 3/12