8/23/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In a Decision[27] dated August 24, 2011, the NLRC reversed and set aside the LA ruling, and accordingly, awarded Pelagio the amounts of US$70,000.00 representing permanent total disability benefits and US$7,000.00 as attorney's fees, or a total of US$77,000.00, at their peso equivalent at the time of actual payment.[28] The NLRC found that in the absence of the purported August 5, 2010 Medical Report in the case records, there is nothing that would support respondents' claim that the company-designated physician indeed issued Pelagio a final disability rating of Grade 11. Thus, the NLRC deemed that there was no final assessment made on Pelagio. In view thereof, the NLRC ruled that Pelagio's disability went beyond 240 days without a declaration that he is fit to resume work or an assessment of disability rating, and as such, he is already entitled to permanent total disability benefits as stated under the CBA.[29] Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration,[30] attaching thereto a copy of the August 5, 2010 Medical Report. However, the same was denied in a Resolution[31] dated October 4, 2011. Aggrieved, respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.[32] The CA Ruling In a Decision[33] dated January 16, 2017, the CA annulled the NLRC ruling and reinstated that of the LA. It opined that the company-designated physician indeed gave Pelagio a disability rating of Grade 11 within 240 days from his repatriation, as evinced by the July 27, 2010 Medical Report[34] which was later on affirmed by the August 5, 2010 Medical Report. Hence, the CA concluded that the company-designated physician's findings should prevail considering that he extensively examined and treated Pelagio's medical condition.[35] Dissatisfied, Pelagio moved for reconsideration,[36] but was denied in a Resolution[37] dated May 22, 2017; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly reinstated the LA ruling which only deemed Pelagio to be suffering from a Grade 11 impediment, and must only receive permanent partial disability benefits corresponding thereto. The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. "Preliminarily, the Court stresses the distinct approach in reviewing a CA's ruling in a labor case. In a Rule 45 review, the Court examines the correctness of the CA's Decision in contrast with the review of jurisdictional errors under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits the review to questions of law. In ruling for legal correctness, the Court elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65096 3/9