6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly justification, thus compelling the employee to litigate.[40] The CA thus relied on a wrong consideration in resolving the issue of attorney’s fees. Be that as it may, Montierro is not entitled to attorney’s fees, even if we apply the correct rule to this case. Montierro, as earlier mentioned, jumped the gun when he filed his complaint one month before the company-designated doctor issued the final disability grading. Hence, there was no unlawful withholding of benefits to speak of. Precisely because Montierro was still under treatment and awaiting the final assessment of the companydesignated physician, the former’s act was premature. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The CA Decision dated 8 August 2013 and Resolution dated 6 January 2014 are AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED. Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur. [1] Rollo, pp. 3-31; Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. [2] Id. at 36-49; Penned by Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, Associate Justice and Chairperson, Third Division, and concurred in by Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Samuel H. Gaerlan. [3] Id. at 51-52. [4] Id. at 37; CA Decision, p. 2. [5] Id. [6] Id. [7] Id. [8] Id. at 37. [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 38; CA Decision, p. 3. [12] Id. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58779 7/9