4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Citing this Court’s ruling in Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad,[25] Tomacruz averred that since he was unable to perform his customary work as an oiler on board an oceangoing vessel for more than 120 days, he should be considered permanently disabled, and therefore entitled to disability benefits.[26] Entitlement of Tomacruz to the disability benefits was the issue the Court of Appeals focused on. In arriving at its decision, the Court of Appeals examined Section 20 B in relation to Section 32 of the 2000 POEA SEC on compensation and benefits for injury or illness of seafarers on board ocean-going vessels. The Court of Appeals also looked into the Labor Code’s concept of permanent total disability and the standards laid down by this Court in previous cases. Not agreeing with the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, the Court of Appeals, on June 16, 2007, granted the petition, on the premise that Tomacruz suffered from permanent total disability. The fallo of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the instant petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the challenged resolutions of the public respondent National Labor Relations Commission are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Private respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay petitioner: a) permanent total disability benefits of US$60,000.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment; and b) attorney’s fees of ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award or its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment.[27] The petitioners moved for the reconsideration of this decision, which was however, denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated January 14, 2009, for lack of merit. Espousing their cause, the petitioners are now before us, with the following assignment of errors: A. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION DESPITE THE APPARENT ABSENCE OF GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION IN AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL BY THE LABOR ARBITER OF RESPONDENT’S COMPLAINT FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS. THE RESOLUTIONS OF BOTH THE LABOR ARBITER AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION BOTH REFLECT SOUND APPLICATION OF THE POEA STANDARD CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT TO FACTS OF THIS CASE AS BORNE OUT BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 1. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN AWARDING DISABILITY BENEFITS DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED FINDING OF FACT elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55083 5/15