4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly decretal portion of the CA Decision[18] dated October 27, 2011 thus read: WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the assailed Decision dated 23 July 2009 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC No. (OFW-M) 07-000527-08 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Decision dated 14 April 2008 of the Labor Arbiter Romelita N. Rioflorido rendered in NLRC NCR CASE No. OFW-(M)-06-06586-07 is hereby REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.[19] The petitioners moved for reconsideration but their motion was denied in the CA Resolution[20] dated February 29, 2012. Issues The petitioners impute the following errors to the appellate court, viz: I. THE CONCLUSION OF THE [CA] WAS BASED ON INFERENCES THAT WERE MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN[;] ITS FINDINGS WERE CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE POEA STANDARD [EMPLOYMENT] CONTRACT AND THE CBA, [AND] THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES[;] II. THE HONORABLE [CA] BLATANTLY ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE NLRC EVEN IF RESPONDENT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DECIDING TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF [LA] RIOFLORIDO.[21] The primordial issue submitted for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the respondent is entitled to permanent total disability benefits. Ruling of the Court At the onset, it is well to note that in resolving disputes on disability benefits, the fundamental consideration has been that the POEA-SEC was designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels. As such, its provisions must be construed and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in their favor because only then can its beneficent provisions be fully carried into effect.[22] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56025 5/13