Preliminarily, considering the grounds raised by petitioner, it appears that he denominated this petition as one under Rule 45, but he filed it as both a petition for review under Rule 45 and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The applicable rule is Rule 45, which clearly provides that decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, regardless of the nature of the action or proceeding involved, may be appealed to this Court through a petition for review.  This remedy is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.  Recourse under Rule 65 cannot be allowed either as an add-on or as a substitute for appeal.23[23]            The procedural infirmity notwithstanding, the Court shall treat this petition as one filed under Rule 45 only and shall consider the alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA as an allegation of reversible error.   The pivotal issue to be resolved is whether or not the CA is correct in denying petitioner’s entitlement to full and total disability benefits amounting to US$60,000.00 and attorney’s fees in the amount of US$6,000.00.   The Court resolves the issue in the affirmative.   23[23] Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc., G.R. No. 160966, October 11, 2005, 472 SCRA 355, 359.