8/20/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Petitioner asserts that his ailment was work-related and aggravated by the nature of his job aboard the vessel. He insists that the Court of Appeals erred in relying on the company-designated physician's assessment to refute the statutory presumption of compensability of a listed disease.[46] Furthermore, petitioner points out that the disputable presumption of compensability is in favor of the seafarer. Thus, the employer has the burden of overcoming the statutory presumption.[47] With his employer's failure to discredit his claim of a work-related or work-aggravated ailment, he insists that he is entitled to the maximum disability benefit as he was already unfit to work on board the vessel.[48] In their Comment,[49] respondents Global Gateway and Captain Flores maintain that the Court of Appeals did not err in reversing the labor tribunals' rulings because petitioner failed to prove that he suffered a work-related illness. They claim that the findings of the company-designated physician were rightfully given credence over those of petitioner's private physician, since she had the opportunity to closely monitor petitioner through a prolonged period. They also highlight petitioner's failure to refer the matter to a third doctor, as required under the law.[50] In his Reply,[51] petitioner emphasizes that the company-designated physician diagnosed him with a coronary disease, and even recommended that he undergo openheart surgery. The issue of compensability only arose when the company-designated physician concluded that his ailment was not work related. He underscores that the company-designated physician never explained why his ailment was not work-related or what caused it.[52] The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the findings and rulings of the labor tribunals, which granted petitioner's disability claims. In reviewing the Court of Appeals' decision, this Court determines its legal correctness "from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the [National Labor Relations Commission] decision before it."[53] Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation[54] laid down the parameters of judicial review for a labor case under Rule 45: In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64956 5/16