4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly effect. 5. It was also grave error on the part of the CA to award Capoy attorney’s fees because the petitioners are not guilty of fraud or bad faith in denying his claim as it was based on just, reasonable and valid grounds. The Case for Capoy In his Comment dated August 4, 2010,[30] Capoy prays that the petition be denied for lack of merit. He contends that the CA acted in accordance with law and applicable jurisprudence, and that it did not commit any patent error or grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC decision, it being supported by substantial evidence. He insists that after 120 days from his repatriation that he was unable to work, he became entitled to permanent total disability compensation. Capoy assails the petitioners’ reliance on Vergara in denying his claim, contending that it is not Vergara but the CBA between the parties and the POEA-SEC that are applicable in his case. He argues that under the POEA-SEC, a seafarer in his situation shall be subjected to medical treatment, but for a period not to exceed 120 days, after which the seafarer shall be assessed by the company-designated physician as to whether he is fit to work or not. If the company doctor fails to make the assessment, he is considered to have suffered from permanent total disability. The Court’s Ruling The issues Based on the nature of this case — a Rule 45 review of a Rule 65 ruling of the CA — as well as the submissions of the parties, submitted for our resolution is the question of whether the CA correctly found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s ruling and thus denied the company’s petition. The question of fact the CA faced was whether Capoy sustained a work-related injury on board the vessel M/S Star Geiranger. The question of law involved, on the other hand was on the question of whether the resulting disability entitles him to permanent total disability benefits, assuming that he did indeed sustain a work-related injury. We find that the CA properly found factual basis in the conclusion that Capoy’s injury was work-related. However, it grossly misappreciated and misapplied the law in ruling on Capoy’s entitlement to permanent total disability. Is Capoy’s injury work-related? The records show that Capoy suffered an injury while at work on board the vessel M/S Star Geiranger, which injury resulted in his disability. While the petitioners argue that Capoy could not have fallen on deck twice to cause his injury, the evidence shows that Capoy had been examined by three doctors in Vancouver. Two of these doctors, Dr. Tai and Dr. Clement, reported that Capoy was suffering from C-spine injury.[31] The vessel M/S Star Geiranger’s Master at the time, Rodolfo Casipe (not Tomas Littaua as the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55931 5/12