4/13/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA's ruling, finding that Antolino had in fact abandoned his medical treatment. According to the NLRC, Antolino very-well knew that his check-up was scheduled on November 4, 2015. However, he failed to attend the same despite several correspondences from Hanseatic warning him of the consequences of his absence. Antolino's allegation of financial incapacity was given no credence for not being supported by evidence. Since he appeared before the companydesignated physician three months after the scheduled medical examination, he was declared guilty of abandonment.[24] Further, the NLRC found that Antolino was not suffering from any total and permanent disability. Since the report of Dr. Magtira, Antolino's chosen physician, was rendered after only one consultation, the veracity of its contents was held to be questionable. Instead, the NLRC relied on the assessment made by Antolino's physical therapist in Antique, which stated that his elbow's range of motion had returned to normal and that its swelling had subsided.[25] The dispositive portion of the NLRC's decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal filed by respondents is GRANTED. The Decision of Labor Arbiter Eric V. Chuanico dated August 8, 2016 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. A new one is entered DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[26] After Antolino's motion for reconsideration was denied, he filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. The CA's Ruling On October 31, 2018, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision affirming the NLRC. Although the appellate court disagreed that Antolino was guilty of medical abandonment, it still found no merit in his claim for disability compensation. To the CA, Antolino's financial in capacity justified his failure to appear at his scheduled medical examination.[27] However, it was found that his condition was not of such nature that would warrant an award of total and permanent disability benefits. The CA held that the severity of Antolino's injury did not meet the threshold for such benefits, which, under the law, is "total paralysis of both upper extremities."[28] The fallo of the assailed decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. There being no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent, the assailed Decision dated October 21, 2016 and the Resolution [dated] February 27, 2017 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.[29] (Emphasis in the original) https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66178 4/12