E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 8 of 16 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56639 SO ORDERED.[30] In a Resolution[31] dated June 30, 2008 respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Essentially, the NLRC held that for purposes of claiming disability benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Standard Employment Contract, it is the company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz – and not respondent’s physician Dr. Vicaldo – who should make the corresponding proclamation or finding that respondent suffered permanent total or partial disability. Thus, Dr. Cruz’s July 18, 2006 Medical Report declaring respondent as fit to work prevails over Dr. Vicaldo’s July 28, 2005 Medical Certificate declaring respondent unfit to resume work as seaman in any capacity. The NLRC added that while the July 18, 2006 certification of fitness was issued more than one year following respondent’s disembarkation, its belated issuance is not sufficient to establish petitioners’ liability for disability compensation, especially where respondent was to blame for his failure to report to Dr. Cruz and continue treatment. The NLRC was referring to respondent’s failure to return for further treatment by Dr. Cruz, as directed, after October 14, 2005. It held that as a result, respondent’s Complaint was prematurely filed since his treatment was still ongoing at the time of its filing, and that he is guilty of unjustified abandonment of treatment. Ruling of the Court of Appeals In a Petition for Certiorari[32] filed with the CA, respondent sought a reversal of the Decision of the NLRC, arguing that the latter committed grave abuse of discretion and gross error in upholding Dr. Cruz’s July 18, 2006 Medical Report; in disregarding the 120-day rule which entitles the employee to permanent disability benefits in the event of continuous inability to perform his work for more than 120 days; and in ordering the dismissal of his Complaint. On December 17, 2009, the CA issued the assailed Decision which contained the following decretal portion: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the March 31, 2008 Decision and June 30, 2008 Resolution of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the March 30, 2007 Decision of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.[33] The CA held that the company-designated physician’s findings are not conclusive and binding on the issue of the employee’s state of health, disability, or fitness to resume work. It held, thus: In fine, therefore, the better view is this: While it is mandatory for the seafarer to be examined first by the company-designated physician, the latter’s findings, however, should not be conclusive and binding upon the 3/27/2020, 12:44 PM