11/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA its Resolution[22] dated July 10, 2016. Hence, this Petition. The Issue and the Parties' Arguments The issue herein is simply, whether or not the CA committed serious error of law in reversing the Decision and Resolution of the NLRC, the latter having affirmed the findings of the ELA that the petitioner is entitled to permanent total disability benefits. As his contention, the petitioner alleges that, prior to the commencement of his employment with the respondents, he was declared Fit for Sea Duty after going through the PEME. It was in the performance of his sea duties that the petitioner began to experience "high blood pressure" and "dizziness," and shortly thereafter, suffered paralysis on half of his body, affecting his lower and upper right limbs, which allegedly resulted from a straight, rigorous duty on port watch and aggravated by the fact that the crew was undermanned on board the vessel.[23] The petitioner narrates that when he reported his state of health to the Chief Mate and Captain of the MV Lady Elisabeth, he was signed off in Turkey for medical reasons with an indication on the Medical Examination Report issued by the ship captain - Scenikov Viktor that "PATIENT [was] UNFIT FOR DUTY."[24] Upon his arrival in the Philippines, he reported immediately to the MMC for evaluation and supposed treatment, however, while a Magnetic Resonance Angiogram (MRA) was performed on him, the results were not disclosed and he was readily discharged as an outpatient.[25] Barely a month after his repatriation, the respondents discontinued the petitioner's treatment, and despite follow-ups, the petitioner was only told that his treatment had been stopped and his condition was labeled as "Risky." The petitioner was, thus, constrained to consult with Dr. Nelson Gundran (Dr. Gundran), who diagnosed the petitioner with "Hypertension State II" and advised the petitioner to avoid strenuous activities, limit work load, and take the medicine prescribed.[26] The petitioner argues that he has suffered from permanent disability, though he may not have lost the use of his body because of his inability to perform his job for more than 120 days, as defined under jurisprudence, particularly the cited case of Quitoriano v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc./Gutay and/or Atle Jebsens Management A/S.[27] On the other hand, the respondents allege that the petitioner had recognized his preexisting hypertension, and voluntarily executed an Oath of Undertaking[28] acknowledging his condition and the doctor's advice for him to regularly take medication. As to the petitioner's assertion that suffered paralysis on half of his body after a straight, rigorous duty on port watch confounded by the undermanned crew on board, the same is bare and self-serving as the evidence on record shows that the symptoms that prompted the medical examination pertained to high blood pressure and dizziness, which were transient and did not cause permanent and total disability. [29] The respondents point to the fact that the petitioner consulted with his private doctor before he was examined by the company-designated physician, thus, it was erroneous for him to state that he was constrained to obtain medical advice from his own https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65376 4/15