5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC which mandates the referral of the matter to a third doctor.[56] In their Comment,[57] respondents maintain that the company-designated physician timely issued a final medical assessment on April 11, 2013, and that it was misleading for Pastrana to claim otherwise.[58] Respondents also fault Pastrana for his failure to move for the referral of the conflicting medical assessments to a third doctor, which militates against Pastrana's claim.[59] Thus, the medical assessment issued by the company-designated physician shall prevail, and accordingly, Pastrana is only entitled to partial disability benefit amounting to $7,465.00.[60] Petitioner reiterates his position in his Reply.[61] Issues The issue for resolution of the Court is whether the CA erred in reversing the NLRC, and in holding that Pastrana is only entitled to partial disability benefit. The Court's Ruling It is settled that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is a mode of appeal where the issue is limited to questions of law.[62] As such, the Court will not review the factual findings of the lower tribunals, or re-examine the evidence already passed upon in the proceedings below. This is especially true when the findings of facts of the labor tribunals were affirmed by the CA.[63] In this case, the labor tribunals and the CA consistently found that the companydesignated physician issued a disability assessment on April 11, 2013, and this became the basis of the partial disability assessment that was offered by respondents to Pastrana. Thus, Pastrana cannot, for the first time and at this stage of the proceedings, assert that the April 11, 2013 disability assessment was not presented nor furnished to him prior to his filing of the complaint. The factual findings of the labor tribunals and the CA with respect to the issuance of said disability assessment shall remain undisturbed. Nonetheless, the Court still finds merit in the Petition. The seafarer's entitlement to disability benefits for work-related illness or injury is governed by the Labor Code, its implementing rules and regulation (IRR), the POEASEC, and prevailing jurisprudence. In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc. and Atlantic Marine Ltd.[64] (Vergara), the Court explained how the pertinent provisions in the Labor Code, its IRR, and the POEA-SEC operate, viz.: In this respect and in the context of the present case, Article 192 (c)(1) of the Labor Code provides that: x x x The following disabilities shall be deemed total and permanent: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66257 5/14