4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc.,[33] this Court explained: While it is true that factual findings made by quasi-judicial and administrative tribunals, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded great respect and even finality by the courts, this general rule admits of exceptions. When there is a showing that a palpable and demonstrable mistake that needs rectification has been committed or when the factual findings were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record, these findings may be examined by the courts.[34] A perusal of the challenged decision before us will reveal that the Court of Appeals actually sustained the factual findings of the tribunals below. However, it found itself unable to affirm their rulings, in light of the applicable law on the matter. Thus, it was compelled to go beyond the issue of grave abuse of discretion. Main Issue: Entitlement of Tomacruz to Disability Benefits The core issue in this case is the propriety of the Court of Appeals’ award of disability benefits to Tomacruz on the basis of the Labor Code provisions on disability, and despite the company-designated physician’s declaration of his fitness to work. The petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals erred in awarding disability benefits despite the findings of the company-designated physician that Tomacruz was already fit to work. Petitioners aver that the company- designated physician’s assessment and evaluation of Tomacruz’s health condition should prevail over that of his doctor of choice.[35] They cite Sarocam v. Interorient Maritime Ent., Inc.[36] to support this contention.[37] Petitioners also asseverate that the Court of Appeals “seriously erred”[38] in applying Article 192 of the Labor Code in this case. They claim that the POEA SEC is the governing law between the parties[39] and the application of the Labor Code provisions on disability is misplaced.[40] Applicability of the Labor Code Provisionson disability benefits to seafarers Entitlement of seafarers to disability benefits is governed not only by medical findings but also by contract and by law.[41] By contract, Department Order No. 4, series of 2000, of the Department of Labor and Employment (POEA SEC) and the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement bind the seafarer and the employer.[42] By law, the Labor Code provisions on disability apply with equal force to seafarers.[43] The petitioners are mistaken in their notion that only the POEA SEC should be considered in resolving the issue at hand. The applicability of the Labor Code provisions elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55083 7/15