6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Philippine Overseas Employment Administration - Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). It further noted that petitioner's medical reports did not state that he suffered from Diabetes Mellitus II with Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease which would have implied that the latter ailment was a mere necessary complication thereof. Aside from echoing the findings of Dr. Viealdo that petitioner's illnesses were workrelated, the NLRC ruled that absent any showing that his illnesses were pre-existing, the reasonable presumption is that he obtained them during the period of his employment, and that they were aggravated by the nature of his work as Chief Cook. [20] Respondents moved for reconsideration[21] which the NLRC denied in a Resolution[22] dated December 20, 2010. Undeterred, they filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). Meanwhile, the NLRC issued an entry of judgment in the case, constraining respondents to settle the full judgment award.[23] The CA Ruling In a Decision[24] dated September 6, 2012, the CA granted respondents' certiorari petition and thereby dismissed petitioner's complaint for disability benefits. It ruled that petitioner failed to prove, through substantial evidence, that his Hypertension and Cardiovascular Disease were suffered during the effectivity of his employment, and that they were connected to his work as Chief Cook. It did not give probative weight to the medical evaluation issued by Dr. Viealdo as he attended to petitioner only once and never conducted any medical tests on him, and in fact, merely limited himself to a medical history review and physical examination of petitioner, noting too that petitioner only sought Dr. Viealdo's medical opinion four months after he filed his complaint. Finally, the CA concluded that the "120-day rule" is not absolute but is dependent on the circumstances of each case, and that petitioner's mere failure to return to his work after 120 days does not ipso facto entitle him to maximum disability benefits.[25] Undaunted, petitioner sought reconsideration, which was, however, denied in a Resolution[26] dated February 19, 2013; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The core issue in this case is whether or not the the CA correctly ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting petitioner's claim for total and permanent disability benefits. The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. The entitlement of overseas seafarers to disability benefits is a matter governed, not only by medical findings, but also by law and contract.[27] The pertinent statutory elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61320 3/10