A. Public respondent gravely abused its discretion and committed serious error in ruling that the petitioners are liable to private respondent for the payment of disability compensation in the amount of US$ 60,000.00 considering the facts as borne out by the evidence on record and the applicable laws.   1.                  Public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in arriving at the findings of fact which are not substantiated by the evidence on record.   2.                  Public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion when it failed to consider the evidence which proves the illness is not work related, thereby violating petitioners’ right to procedural due process.   3.                  Public respondent erred in not finding in favor of the expert opinion of the company-designated doctor on the nature of the illness as against that of complainant’s doctor in utter disregard of rules on evidence.   Without concrete proof that his assessment is biased and self-serving, the medical opinion of the company-designate physician should be accorded probative value and not discarded merely on the basis of unfounded allegation. 4. Public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion affirmed the award of attorney’s fees. when it   B. Public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion when it affirmed the award of attorney’s fees.18[18]     18[18] Id. at 18.