5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly physician. The burden of proof rested on Belmonte to establish, by substantial evidence, his entitlement to disability benefits.[23] Sadly, Belmonte failed to discharge this burden. Considering the absence of findings coming from a third doctor, the Court upholds the findings of the CA and holds that the certification of the company-designated physician should prevail. The Court does so for the following reasons: first, the records show that Belmonte only consulted the private physician after his complaint with the LA has been filed; second, the medical certificate was issued after a one-day consultation; and third, the medical certification was not supported by particular tests or medical procedures conducted on Belmonte that would sufficiently controvert the positive results of those administered to him by the company-designated physician. Lastly, the Court finds Belmonte’s assertion, that his non-hiring by the CFSCMI was the most convincing proof of his disability, without basis. It was not a matter of course for CFSCMI to re-hire him after the expiration of his contract. There is also no evidence on record showing that Belmonte sought reemployment with other manning agencies, but was turned down due to his illness. “A seafarer’s inability to resume his work after the lapse of more than 120 days from the time he suffered an injury and/or illness is not a magic wand that automatically warrants the grant of total and permanent disability benefits in his favor.”[24] Verily, while the Court adheres to the principle of liberality in favor of the seafarer in construing the POEA-SEC, awards for compensation cannot be made to rest on mere speculations and presumptions.[25] Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the CA correctly granted the respondents’ petition for certiorari since the NLRC’s findings and conclusions are tainted with grave abuse of discretion considering that Belmonte’s claim for disability benefits was unsupported by substantial evidence. Thus, the Court rules that Belmonte is not entitled to receive permanent total disability benefits. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 29, 2013 and Resolution dated September 18, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 124335 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Villarama, Jr., and Jardeleza, JJ., concur. [1] Rollo, pp. 29-73. [2] Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring; id. at 10-19. [3] Id. at 21-22. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58640 6/9