RESOLUTION G.R. No. 214334 November 17, 2014 3 Ascribing grave abuse of discretion, petitioners elevated the adverse NLRC ruling to the Court of Appeals. On 11 July 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the NLRC, dismissing the complaint for recovery of disability benefits filed by Repizo. For failing to show that the conclusion reached by the NLRC was attended by capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, the appellate court sustained the NLRC. Similarly ill-fated was Repizo's Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the appellate court in a Resolution dated 12 September 2014. The Issues Unyielding, Repizo is now before this Court via this instant Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Courts of Appeals' Resolutions while raising the following issues: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITED A REVERSIBLE ERROR BY RULING THAT REPIZO WAS NOT MEDICALLY REPATRIATED; I. II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF REVERSIBLE ERROR BY RULING ENTITLED TO DISABILITY BENEFITS NOT WORK-RELATED EVEN WHEN EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. 5 APPEALS COMMITED A THAT REPIZO IS NOT BECAUSE HIS ILLNESS IS THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL The Court's Ruling The Court resolves to deny the petition. Entitlement of seamen on overseas work to disability benefits is a matter governed, not only by medical findings, but by law and by contract. The material statutory provisions are Articles 191 to 193 under Chapter VI (Disability Benefits) of the Labor Code, in relation with Rule X of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book IV of the Labor Code. By contract, the POEA-[Standard Employment Contract (SEC)], as provided under Department Order No. 4, series of 2000 of the Department of Labor and Employment, and the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) bind the seaman and his employer to each other. 6 6 Petition for Review on Certiorari. Id. at 7. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 186180, 22 March 2010, 616 SCRA 362, 372-373. - over - 20 t ', I ,. ~ I .1 ~I•'' \ I •