4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly redeployment put in doubt the respondents' claim that he was indeed fit to work. The dispositive portion of said judgment reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondents Agemar Manning Agency, Inc. and/or Sonnet Shipping Ltd./Malta to pay complainant Ruben D. Andrada the amount of THIRTY TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NINETEEN US DOLLARS & 20/100 (US$32,419.20) or its equivalent in Philippine Peso at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time of actual payment representing his disability benefits, sickness wages and attorney's fees. All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[9] On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the judgment of the LA ratiocinating that Andrada’s claim for disability benefit was bereft of legal and factual basis in the face of the certificate of fitness to work issued by the companydesignated physician. The NLRC said that the findings and assessment of the companydesignated physician, who also supervised and monitored Andrada's treatment, should be upheld as the truthful declaration of the latter's medical status at the time of the issuance of the certificate. It was likewise ruled that the execution by Andrada of the Deed of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim effectively negated his claim for disability benefits. Lastly, the NLRC declared that Andrada's non-disclosure of the fact that he was afflicted with umbilical hernia as early as 2002 further precluded him from claiming said disability benefits. The award of sickness wages was also set aside because the same was already paid to Andrada as shown by copies of the corresponding check vouchers issued by the respondents. Thus, the NLRC adjudged: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated January 7, 2007 is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[10] Aggrieved, Andrada assailed the NLRC decision via a petition for certiorari before the CA ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC for denying his entitlement for disability benefits and other monetary claims. On May 28, 2010, the CA rendered its judgment finding that the challenged decision of the NLRC was in accordance with law and prevailing jurisprudence and that no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction could be imputed against it for reversing the January 9, 2007 LA decision. The CA disposed the case as follows: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55246 3/11