4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly monetary claims for lack of factual and legal bases.[27] The PVA Ruling In a Decision[28] dated August 16, 2017, the PYA ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering TSPI, Yerchez, and TSL to jointly and severally pay him US$89,100.00 representing total and permanent disability benefits, as well as ten percent (10%) attorney's fees. [29] In so ruling, the PYA held that petitioner's eye condition was not caused by or associated with his diabetes mellitus, and that he did not abandon his treatment. On the contrary, the PYA held that TSPI was negligent in failing to provide a safe place to work and appropriate equipment to their workers to avoid all kinds of dangers and illnesses. On this score, it was pointed out that TSPI's personnel were exposed to extreme temperatures without the proper protective clothing, thus, creating a more dangerous work environment that resulted to petitioner's permanent blindness in the left eye and his incapacity to resume the same line of work. Consequently, even if petitioner suffered blindness in only one eye, the CBA deems his disability as total and permanent, entitling him to US$89,100.00. The PYA also awarded ten percent (10%) attorney's fees since petitioner was compelled to litigate to protect his rights and interest. All other claims were dismissed for lack of merit.[30] Aggrieved, TSPI moved for reconsideration,[31] which the PYA denied in a Resolution[32] dated October 25, 2017. Hence, the matter was elevated to the CA via a petition for review[33] pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The CA Ruling In the assailed Decision[34] dated August 24, 2018, the CA partly granted TSPI's petition declaring petitioner entitled to partial and permanent disability benefits only, or Grade 7 disability as assessed by the company-designated physician, and deleted the award of attorney's fees.[35] While the CA sustained the finding that there was no medical abandonment given that no further medical treatment can be done to save petitioner's left eye except the improvement of his physical appearance, and that TSPI failed to disprove the presumption of work-relatedness of petitioner's illness, it nonetheless held that the loss of vision in one eye is equivalent to Grade 7 disability only under the POEA-SEC. The CA also found no basis in awarding petitioner attorney's fees, holding that there was no bad faith or malice on the part of TSPI.[36] Petitioner's motion for reconsideration[37] was denied in a Resolution[38] dated February 8, 2019; hence, the present petition. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA committed reversible error in awarding petitioner partial and permanent disability benefits only https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66115 3/12