5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly add that more importantly, for abandoning his medical treatment under the supervision of the company-designated physician who was prevented from making a final assessment of his disability, Ruizo lost his entitlement to the maximum disability compensation and foreclosed the possibility of a recovery from his ailment. The Case for Ruizo In his comment (on the petition)[22] filed on May 4, 2012, Ruizo prays that the petition be denied for lack of merit, it being just a reiteration of the petitioners’ arguments presented to, and which were already judiciously resolved by, the CA. He contends that the issues raised by the petitioners are factual and not subject to review by this Court. At any rate, he argues, since he was unable to work despite treatment by Dr. Cruz for more than 120 days, the CA committed no error when it declared that he was already unfit to work as a seafarer; thus, his entitlement to full disability compensation under the CBA. The Court’s Ruling I. The procedural question While the Court is not a trier of facts,[23] we deem it proper to inquire into the facts of the present dispute to determine if any grave abuse of discretion intervened when the CA reversed the NLRC’s appreciation of evidence.[24] The labor tribunals found Ruizo to have abandoned his treatment with Dr. Cruz and, for this reason, they denied his claim for disability benefits, there being no assessment of his disability from Dr. Cruz. The CA, on the other hand, found that Ruizo was permanently and totally disabled because he was unable to work as a seafarer for more than 120 days and should be paid the corresponding disability benefits under the parties’ CBA, the unsigned onepage excerpt of which (presented by Ruizo to the LA) it admitted in evidence, but which was considered by the LA and the NLRC to have no probative value. II. The merits of the case A. The 120-day rule As in many other maritime compensation cases which reached the Court, the CA’s award of permanent total disability benefits to Ruizo is anchored on the 120-day rule often invoked through the Court’s pronouncement in Crystal Shipping. The CA declared: “The true test of whether respondent suffered from a permanent disability is whether there is evidence that he was unable to perform his customary work as chief cook for more than 120 days.”[25] The 120-day rule laid down in Crystal Shipping and other cases similarly resolved, however, had already been clarified or modified. In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.,[26] the Court declared: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56718 4/11