4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly THAT COMPLAINANT IS ALREADY DECLARED FIT TO WORK. 2. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROVISION OF ARTICLE 192 OF THE LABOR CODE (OR 120-DAY RULE) TO THE INSTANT CASE ON ENTITLEMENT OF A SEAFARER TO DISABILITY BENEFITS WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY GOVERNED BY PROVISIONS OF THE POEA STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT. APPLYING ARTICLE 192 OF THE LABOR CODE IN A CLAIM FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS UNDER THE POEA STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT IS CLEARLY MISPLACED. 3. THE CRYSTAL SHIPPING DECISION OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE AND THE SAID CASE CANNOT BE RESORTED TO AS BASIS FOR ANY DECISION FOR BEING ERRONEOUS AS WELL. B. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES.[28] Procedural Issue: Grave Abuse of Discretion Petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals erred in granting the Rule 65[29] petition filed by Tomacruz before it since the NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion when it affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, and the petition merely raised possible errors of law and misappreciation of evidence by the NLRC in denying the claim.[30] The power of the Court of Appeals to review the evidence on record even on a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65[31] has already been confirmed by this Court in several cases, viz: The power of the Court of Appeals to review NLRC decisions via Rule 65 or Petition for Certiorari has been settled as early as in our decision in St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission. This Court held that the proper vehicle for such review was a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and that this action should be filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts. Moreover, it is already settled that under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902[10] (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, amending for the purpose of Section Nine of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended, known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), the Court of Appeals — pursuant to the exercise of its original jurisdiction over Petitions for Certiorari — is specifically given the power to pass upon the evidence, if and when necessary, to resolve factual issues.[32] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55083 6/15