11/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly as "he feels strong enough to work."[13] He stressed that if the respondents would deny his reemployment, he should be compensated for the long years of service he had rendered for them. The respondents denied these claims for alleged lack of basis. For failure of the parties to settle the case amicably, the hearing officer terminated the conciliation proceedings. On December 16, 2013, the petitioner filed a claim for permanent total disability benefits, damages and attorney's fees with the Regional Arbitration Branch No. 1 of the NLRC in San Fernando, La Union. On April 21, 2014, Executive Labor Arbiter (ELA) Irenarco R. Rimando rendered a Decision[14] against the respondents, the dispositive portion reading, thus: IN VIEW THEREOF, judgment is hereby rendered directing respondents DOHLE PHILMAN MANNING AGENCY, INC. AND CAPT. MANOLO GACUTAN to jointly and severally pay US$60,000.00 to DANILO L. PACIO, as his permanent and total disability benefits, plus 10% thereof as attorney's fees. SO ORDERED.[15] The respondents' appeal to the NLRC was struck down for lack of merit, with the NLRC affirming the findings of the ELA in a Decision[16] promulgated on September 30, 2014. The respondents' Motion for Reconsideration was similarly denied, prompting the respondents to seek a reprieve with the CA.[17] In a Decision[18] dated January 22, 2016 granting the respondents' appeal, the CA found merit in the respondents' assertion that the labor tribunals gravely abused their discretion in disregarding the pertinent provisions of the Labor Code, the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA SEC), and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in granting the petitioner permanent total disability benefits. The CA found that the respondents were cognizant of the petitioner's history of high blood pressure, as the latter had fully disclosed his condition during the PEME and even admitted that he was on maintenance medication.[19] This also indicated that the petitioner had been suffering from the pre-existing condition of hypertension at the time his services were engaged by the respondents. While not discounting the possibility that the pre-existing condition, which caused the petitioner's transient ischemic attack, may have progressed during the term of his employment, the CA held that there was no compliance with the prescribed procedure for disability compensation.[20] The dispositive portion of the Decision reads, to wit: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 30, 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) - Fifth Division in NLRC RAB-I-OFW-(S)-12-1125-13 (SFLU) and NLRC LAC No. 07-000557-14-OFW and its Resolution dated October 30, 2014 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED.[21] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65376 3/15