5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly of execution dated January 11, 2008. The parties, nonetheless, agreed: 5. That this Satisfaction of Judgment is without prejudice to herein respondents’ [ISMI, Santos and Majestic] Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals docketed as CA GR SP No. 102311 entitled “Indochina Management, Inc. and Majestic Carriers, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division) and Pedro L. Libang, Jr.” and this Satisfaction of Judgment is being made only pursuant to the writ of execution dated 11 January 2008.[29] The Ruling of the CA On October 22, 2008, the CA rendered its decision granting the petition for certiorari. For the CA, the lone assessment made by Dr. Vicaldo could not have justified the LA’s and NLRC’s finding of a Grade VI disability. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) requires the companydesignated physician to be the one to make a disability assessment of a seafarer. Furthermore, for hypertension to be compensable, it must be shown to cause impairment of function of body organs, as substantiated by documents such as chest xray report, ECG report, blood chemistry report, funduscopy report and CT scan, pursuant to Section 32-A (20)[30] of the POEA-SEC.[31] Thus, the dispositive portion of the CA decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The Resolutions of NLRC Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan dated September 11, 2007 and December 17, 2007 in NLRC CA NO. 042080-04 (NLRC NCR Case No. 04-010135-00) are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of Labor Arbiter Cresencio G. Ramos, Jr. dated September 24, 2004 is ANNULLED and the complaint of Pedro Libang, Jr. is DISMISSED. Pedro Libang, Jr., with the assistance of his counsel Atty. Romulo P. Valmores, is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RETURN to the petitioners One Million One Hundred TwentyFour Thousand Two Hundred Pesos (P1,124,200.00) with legal interest from March 25, 2008 until date of payment. SO ORDERED.[32] Libang’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated September 25, 2009. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. The Present Petition The core issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA erred in finding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it declared Libang entitled to disability elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57645 6/13