1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly a final and categorical evaluation as to his disability. He insists that the failure of the company-designated physician to submit a final and categorical disability assessment within the 120/240-day period conclusively presumes that he is permanently disabled. Lastly, the petitioner argues that the temporary disability assessment of the companydesignated physician is not controlling in awarding disability benefits. In their Comment[29] dated June 30, 2016, the respondents emphasize that the absence of findings coming from a third doctor makes the certification of the companydesignated physician controlling in determining the disability grading of the petitioner's injury. Accordingly, the findings of the company-designated physician should prevail. Moreover, the respondents submit that the mere lapse of 120/240-day period does not automatically vest an award of permanent disability benefits upon the petitioner. They argue that the degree of disability must still be determined by a competent and reliable physician. Lastly, the respondents claim that there is absolutely no basis for this Court to award attorney's fees in the absence of bad faith on their part in denying the petitioner's demand for permanent disability benefits. Our Ruling This Court grants the petition. In a nutshell, the main issue in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits. The parties' disagreement lies on the degree of disability and the amount of benefits that the petitioner is entitled. At the outset, this Court must address the petitioner's argument that the CA went beyond its jurisdiction when it re-evaluated the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. There is no question that as general rule, findings of fact of an administrative agency (like the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC), which has acquired expertise in the particular field of its endeavor, are accorded great weight on appeal. This Court is consistent in ruling that the factual findings and conclusions of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on this Court a long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[30] Judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which its labor officials' findings rest.[31] The factual findings of the NLRC affirming those of the Labor Arbiter, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, when sufficiently supported by evidence on record, are accorded respect if not finality, and are considered binding on this Court.[32] However, the rule, is not absolute and admits of certain well-recognized exceptions. Thus, when the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are not supported by substantial evidence or their judgment was based on a misapprehension of facts, the appellate court may make an independent evaluation of the facts of the case, which https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65828 6/15