5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In a Decision[33] dated May 4, 2012, the CA granted the certiorari petition, and thereby set aside the NLRC’s decision. It found that while Ayungo indeed disclosed that he had Diabetes Mellitus, this fact alone does not entitle him to disability benefits as he failed to show the causal connection between his illness and the work for which he was contracted.[34] Similarly, the CA rejected Ayungo’s claim in connection with his Hypertension as it was not shown that said illness impaired the function of any of his body organs.[35] Lastly, the CA stated that the undated medical certificate of Dr. Donato-Tan cannot be given credence for failing to show that Ayungo’s illnesses were work-related, considering too that Ayungo failed to refer the matter to a “third doctor” as prescribed under the 2000 POEA-SEC.[36] Dissatisfied, Ayungo filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution[37] dated August 16, 2012, hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA erred in granting respondents’ petition for certiorari, thereby setting aside the NLRC’s decision holding that Ayungo was entitled to disability benefits. The Court’s Ruling To justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the petitioner must satisfactorily show that the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the discretion conferred upon them. Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. To be considered “grave,” the discretionary authority must be exercised in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act all in contemplation of law.[38] In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia, its findings and the conclusions reached thereby are not supported by substantial evidence.[39] This requirement is clearly expressed in Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court which provides that “[i]n cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.” Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the CA correctly granted respondents’ certiorari petition since the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it held that Ayungo was entitled to disability benefits notwithstanding the latter’s failure to establish his claim through substantial evidence. Specifically, Ayungo was not able to demonstrate, under the parameters of the abovementioned evidentiary threshold, that his Diabetes Mellitus was related to his work as Chief Engineer during the course of his employment. It is well-settled that for a disability to be compensable, the seafarer must establish that there exists “a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56522 4/10