6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Proceedings before the National Labor Relations Commission In their appeal to the NLRC, petitioners claimed that the Labor Arbiter erred (1) in declaring Gazzingan’s illness as work-related despite the contrary opinion of the company-designated physician who is the one mandated by law to determine and assess a seaman’s disability; (2) in disregarding Gazzingan’s failure to challenge Dr. Banaga’s declaration by not seeking the opinion of another doctor in accordance with the procedure laid down in the POEA-SEC; (3) in awarding US$50,000.00 to Gazzingan as permanent total disability benefits since the POEA-SEC provides for the grant of such amount only for death benefits; (4) in awarding sickness allowance when the same has already been paid by petitioners to Gazzingan; and, (5) in awarding attorney’s fees. On January 30, 2008, Gazzingan died of hemorrhagic shock secondary to dissecting aortic aneurysm.[16] In a Decision[17] dated January 31, 2008, the NLRC gave weight to the opinion of the company-designated physician that Gazzingan’s illness is not work-related. It ruled that the Labor Arbiter’s Decision is not rooted on legal and factual basis. It explained that as Gazzingan did not seek and present a second opinion from another physician, he left the NLRC with no option but to consider the certification issued by Dr. Banaga as an accurate assessment of his medical condition. The NLRC took note that Gazzingan is a smoker and has a prior surgery for the excision of lipoma, a hereditary disease. Thus, it concluded that his aortic dissection developed due to hereditary susceptibility, is not work-related and, consequently, not compensable. The NLRC disposed of the appeal as follows: WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside. A new one is entered dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[18] Gazzingan’s counsel filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied for lack of merit in the NLRC Resolution[19] of March 12, 2008. Proceedings before the Court of Appeals Respondents, as heirs of Gazzingan, filed a Petition for Certiorari[20] with the CA. They imputed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the NLRC in ruling that Gazzingan’s illness is congenital and not compensable; and in giving credence to Dr. Banaga’s assessment, which was not based on a thorough, exhaustive and complete examination of Gazzingan but is merely an opinion on the nature of the illness. Respondents further argued that compensability of disability claims is presumed and this presumption cannot be defeated by an opinion plucked out of thin air just to favor the employer. On May 26, 2011, the CA rendered a Decision[21] granting the Petition, setting aside the NLRC ruling, and reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. It found no substantial elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60638 4/14