3/31/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly considered as a final disability rating as she was still required to undergo fifteen (15) sessions of physical therapy and treatment. She insists that the company-designated physician's assessment on the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability must be definite. If the company-designated physician failed to issue a definite assessment and the seafarer's medical condition remains unresolved, the latter shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled. In the absence of a definite and accurate assessment by the company-designated physician, Briones claims that the provision in POEA-SEC on the appointment of a third-doctor does not apply since there was no final assessment to contest. Additionally, Briones avers that more than five (5) months have transpired from the date of her injuries on July 17, 2015 until the time that Dr. Celino issued his medical report on December 1, 2015. While the medical treatment may go beyond 120 days and extended up to the maximum period of 240 days, such extension, however, requires a justification for the same. She alleged that there was no sufficient justification offered by the petitioners for the extension of her medical treatment. Simply stated, the issue brought for resolution before this Court is whether Briones is entitled to payment of total permanent disability benefit despite of her failure to observe the third-doctor referral provision in the POEA-SEC, which was incorporated in the employment contract. As a general rule, only questions of law raised via a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are reviewable by the Court. Factual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, including labor tribunals, are accorded much respect by this Court as they are specialized to rule on matters falling within substantial evidence. However, a relaxation of this rule is made permissible by this Court whenever any of the following circumstances is present: 1. When the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; 2. when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; 3. when there is grave abuse of discretion; 4. when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; 5. when the findings of fact are conflicting; 6. when in making its findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; 7. when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; 8. when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; 9. when the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent; https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66202 5/10