4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly US$54,775.00 and to report his compliance within ten (10) days from the finality of this Decision. No costs. SO ORDERED.[14] According to the CA, the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it upheld the medical assessment of Solacito's personal physician over that of the companydesignated physicians. The CA explained that under the POEA-SEC and prevailing jurisprudence, the medical assessment of the company-designated physicians should be recognized when the seafarer, as in this case, did not submit himself to the assessment of a third doctor. The CA further held that under the POEA-SEC, Solacito is not entitled to Grade 1 disability benefit for he is not suffering complete loss of his sense of hearing in both ears. The CA also dismissed, as being purely speculative and unsupported by evidence, NLRC's conclusion that Solacito will no longer be able to work as an able seaman. However, the CA held that Solacito is suffering permanent and partial disability with a Grade 12 disability rating. According to the CA, Solacito's disability has become permanent because his disability lasted for more than 120 days from his repatriation, and the company-designated physician declared him fit to work after more than 240 days. Yet, his permanent disability could not be considered total in nature. The CA explained that, considering that a Grade 11 assessment is given for the total loss of the sense of hearing in one ear, then, the logical assessment for partial hearing loss in one ear is Grade 12. Thus, the CA found Solacito entitled to the disability benefits corresponding to a Grade 12 disability rating, or $5,225.00. Since petitioners already paid the total award amounting to P2,722,000.00 as well as execution fees amounting to P27,220.00, petitioners are thus entitled to the return of the money they paid less $5,225.00, or $54,775.00. The parties respectively filed motions for reconsideration of the CA Decision. Meanwhile, petitioners also filed a manifestation[15] submitting additional evidence which showed that Solacito was subsequently re-deployed through another manning agency. Both motions for reconsideration were, however, denied in a Resolution dated March 13, 2015. Hence, this Petition. Issues The present Petition raises the following issues: 1. Whether the CA erred in finding Solacito suffering from permanent and partial disability; and 2. If the Court finds Solacito permanently and partially disabled, whether the CA erred in the calculation of the amounts due to be returned to petitioners. The Court's Ruling Before delving into the main issues, the Court first disposes of the procedural matters brought up by Solacito. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66216 5/14