4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly on petitioner. Also, since all medical tests and examinations were done by the company-designated physician, petitioner’s physicians were not privies to his case from the beginning. Thus, both Drs. Vicaldo and Caja’s findings were not adequate evidence of petitioner’s loss of earning capacity due to ailment contracted during employment. In a Resolution[21] dated July 4, 2005, the CA issued a TRO enjoining the NLRC from enforcing the following issuances: a) NLRC Decision dated February 26, 2004; b) NLRC Decision dated August 24, 2004; c) NLRC Resolution dated February 28, 2005; and d) Writ of Execution issued by the Labor Arbiter on May 31, 2005 in NLRC NCR OFW 0111-2316-00. Thereafter, on September 28, 2005, a Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued upon respondents’ posting of a bond in the amount of P500,000.00. The CA then rendered its Decision[22] on February 17, 2006. It found merit in the petition and ruled that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in relying on the certification issued by Dr. Caja instead of the fit to work declaration of the companydesignated physician who, under the POEA-SEC, is the one tasked to assess petitioner’s medical condition for purposes of claiming disability compensation. Besides, the medical certificate of Dr. Caja cannot be considered as an accurate assessment of the illness contracted by petitioner during the course of his employment with respondents. It was based merely on the statements given to Dr. Caja by petitioner and same did not even provide for any justification for the rating given. Also, the certification was made 10 months from the date petitioner was declared fit to work and almost one year from the date of his repatriation. And the most notable of all, petitioner consulted Dr. Caja only once. With regard to the release and quitclaim, the CA upheld the same considering that it was voluntarily executed by petitioner and that the consideration for its issuance was not unconscionable and unreasonable. It ruled that respondents were already released from liability when petitioner was declared fit to return to work and after they paid him sickness allowance for which he even executed a quitclaim. Thus, the dispositive portion of the CA Decision states: WHEREFORE, the assailed Decisions dated February 26, 2004, and August 24, 2004, and the Resolution dated February 28, 2005 issued by the NLRC in NCR CA No. 034945-03 are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter, dated January 21, 2003, dismissing private respondents’ complaint is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.[23] Petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration[24] but same was denied by the CA in a Resolution[25] dated August 1, 2006. Hence, this present petition. Issues Petitioner anchors his petition on the following assignment of errors: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/54687 4/12