5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The LA noted that Rosales is entitled to Grade 1 disability benefits because his illness prevented him from working for more than one hundred twenty (120) days reckoned from the time he was repatriated in February 2006 until his disability rating was issued in October 2006. INC appealed the ruling to the NLRC. The latter, in its resolution of January 4, 2008, affirmed the LA’s decision. The NLRC, however, subsequently reversed its ruling.[12] It opined in this reversal that Rosales should only be entitled to a partial disability benefit amounting to Twenty Thousand United States dollars (US$20,900.00) in accordance with Dr. Cruz’ assessment. The NLRC reasoned out that Dr. Cruz’ assessment should prevail over Dr. Vicaldo’s finding because Dr. Cruz, as the company-designated doctor, had thoroughly examined and had overseen the treatment of Rosales from the time of repatriation until the date of the issuance of his disability grading, while Dr. Vicaldo only attended to Rosales once on November 9, 2006. Rosales challenged the NLRC ruling by filing with the CA a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. He contended that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in upholding the assessment of the company-designated physician and in finding that he is not entitled to full disability benefits. The Assailed CA Decision The CA granted the petition in its decision of December 6, 2010,[13] thereby reinstating the LA’s decision finding Rosales entitled to permanent total disability benefits. The appellate court found that from the time Rosales was repatriated until the disability grading was issued, a period of eight (8) months or more than one hundred twenty (120) days, had lapsed and Rosales had not been able to work during this period. The CA also considered that despite medical treatment, Dr. Cruz still found that Rosales’ illness persisted; that this declaration, coupled with Rosales’ two (2) major heart operations, should be more than sufficient to conclude that he could no longer perform his duties as Chief Cook. For this reason, Rosales’ earning capacity was grossly impaired, warranting the award of Grade 1 permanent total disability benefits. INC moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion in its resolution of February 24, 2011;[14] hence, the petition. The Issues INC raises the following assignment of errors: I. WHETHER OR NOT ROSALES IS ENTITLED TO FULL DISABILITY COMPENSATION BENEFITS BECAUSE HE WAS UNABLE TO WORK FOR ONE elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57993 3/10