6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly based on the extensive evaluation and treatment of Pellazar’s medical condition by the company doctors. Under a Rule 65 petition, the CA does not determine which of the conflicting findings or assessment should be preferred; but rather, whether in deciding to uphold one over the other, the NLRC exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA’s finding in this regard finds no support in its decision because of its misplaced reliance on the 120-day period, as earlier discussed. Based on the foregoing, we deny the petition. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution dated 26 January 2010 and 12 April 2010, respectively of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 110168 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Sereno, C. J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur. [1] Rollo, pp. 307-324; Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia with Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Elihu A. Ybañez concurring. [2] Id. at 326-327. [3] Id. at 52. [4] Id. at 186. [5] Id. at 323. [6] 588 Phil. 895, 913 (2008). [7] Rollo, p. 24. [8] Philasia Shipping Agency Corporation v. Tomacruz, G.R. No. 181180, 15 August 2012, 678 SCRA 503, 515 citing Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., supra note 5 at 908 and Valenzona v. Fair Shipping Corporation, et al., 675 Phil. 713, 725 (2011). [9] OSG Shipmanagement Manila, Inc. v. Pellezar, G.R. No. 198367, 6 August 2014. [10] Supra note 6. [11] Id. at 912. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60647 9/10