E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 4 of 14 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57204 Decision of the NLRC In its August 31, 2010 Decision[23] reversing the LA, the NLRC was of the considered view that the findings of the company-designated physicians were different from those of Dr. Escutin. The former recommended the disability grading of Grade 12, for the neck, and Grade 11, for the chest-trunk-spine, while the latter never indicated any disability rating – only “permanent disability.” With this, the NLRC opined that since the company-designated physicians had been treating petitioner since his repatriation in July 2008 until January 2009, they were in a better position to know the injury suffered by petitioner, its treatment and its disability grading.[24] For the NLRC, the mere finding of Dr. Escutin that petitioner could no longer return to sea as he reportedly suffered from a “permanent disability” was insufficient to award him with the Grade 1 disability benefits of $60,000.00. The NLRC stated that such findings should be correlated with the disability grading under Section 32 of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).[25] Accordingly, the NLRC awarded petitioner the disability benefits of Grade 11, the higher of the two gradings given by the company-designated physician, amounting to $7,465.00.[26] Petitioner sought reconsideration but to no avail.[27] Decision of the Court of Appeals Affirming the NLRC decision, the CA similarly ruled that the disability gradings given by the company-designated physicians should prevail since they were in a better position to know petitioner’s injury, unlike Dr. Escutin who examined petitioner only once.[28] In addition, the CA noted that from the time petitioner suffered injury on July 19, 2008, until the time he was given a disability grading by the company-designated physicians on November 6, 2008, only 110 days had lapsed. Then, when petitioner instituted his labor complaint, only 196 days had lapsed from the time he sustained his injury. Consequently, the CA ruled that the required 240-day period under Rule X, Section 2 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book IV had not yet expired. Petitioner sought reconsideration but was rebuffed. Hence, this petition. Petitioner claims that both the CA and the NLRC disregarded the evidence proving that he suffered from permanent total disability.[29] He argues that he was entitled to be awarded permanent total disability benefits, considering that it was the company-designated physicians who first found him to suffer from “cervical and lumbar spondylosis, chronic L5 spondylosis and Grade 1 Spondylolisthesis.”[30] 3/27/2020, 12:39 PM