6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly illness was not work-related; and that because of this, the burden fell on the latter to disprove the finding of the company-designated doctor. The LA ruled that Demetrio failed to discharge this burden because he adduced no evidence proving that his work increased the risk of contracting stomach cancer. Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Decision of the LA.[31] It gave credence to the medical opinion of the company-designated physician. It opined that aside from bare allegations, Demetrio adduced no competent evidence to prove that his stomach cancer was caused or aggravated by the working conditions on the vessel. On May 11, 2011, the NLRC denied[32] Demetrio's Motion for Reconsideration. Ruling of the Court of Appeals Demetrio thereafter filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA imputing grave abuse of discretion against the NLRC in not granting him full disability benefits despite his alleged work-related illness that manifested during his last contract with the PTC and the NCM. On February 20,2012, the CA rendered the assailed Decision,[33] the decretal portion of which reads: ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 24, 2011 and Resolution dated May 11, 2011 are nullified and [a] new one rendered, directing private respondents to pay petitioner full disability benefits and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% thereof. The Motion for Substitution of Parties dated January 25, 2012, praying that Mrs. Julia T. Aligway be substituted as petitioner, in lieu of her husband Demetrio Aligway Jr., who died on December 26, 2011, is granted. The caption of the case is amended to reflect the name of Mrs. Julia T. Aligway, as substitute petitioner. SO ORDERED.[34] The CA decreed that the LA and the NLRC improperly relied on the findings of the company-designated physician. It held that said doctor merely referred to medical literature to explain Demetrio's condition without personally examining him; that Dr. Salvador did not discuss how Demetrio's work and working environment could have caused or aggravated his illness; that the opinion of Dr. Salvador lacked accuracy and was hypothetical, if not purely academic; and that Dr. Salvador was not Demetrio's original attending physician. In conclusion, the CA held that the presumption of compensability prevails and that Demetrio is entitled to full disability benefits pursuant to the CBA. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61244 3/10