1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CA decreed that petitioner was entitled to sickness allowance or income benefit for the period from his repatriation until the date that the company-designated doctor issued his assessment on his condition. It further ruled that petitioner is entitled to Grade 11 disability benefits considering that respondents themselves acknowledged that the company-designated doctor made such assessment on petitioner. Issues With the denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed this Petition arguing that: THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW [(1)] IN HOLDING HIM PETITIONER WAS GUILTY OF MEDICAL ABANDONMENT FOR HIS ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLETE HIS TREATMENT WITH THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN [; AND (2)] IN DISREGARDING SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PROVING THAT [PETITIONER IS] ENTITLED TO DISABILITY BENEFITS.[24] Petitioner maintains that he did not commit a breach of his contractual obligations as he did not abandon his treatment. Instead, he faults the company-designated doctor from failing to issue any certification on his condition within 120 days from his repatriation. He maintains that he underwent the prescribed therapy; and even before its completion, the prognosis was known that regardless of whatever medical management, he could no longer be restored to his pre-injury health status. On the other hand, respondents insist that petitioner was duty-bound to complete his medical treatment with the company-designated doctor. They stress that seafarers are to report regularly to the company-designated physician for their treatment otherwise, they will be guilty of medical abandonment and be disqualified from seeking disability benefits. Our Ruling The Petition is bereft of merit. As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court is not a trier of facts. At the same time, it accords much respect on the factual findings of administrative bodies, like labor tribunals, since they are specialized to decide matters within their jurisdiction. However, this rule allows certain exceptions, including situations where the factual findings are conflicting,[25] as in the case at bench. There being variance in the findings of fact of the LA and the NLRC, on one hand, and of the CA, on the other hand, the Court deems it necessary to re-assess these factual findings for the just resolution of the case. When is a seafarer deemed to he permanently and totally disabled? https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65555 4/9