8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Unsatisfied with the LA ruling, petitioners filed an appeal[35] before the NLRC. The NLRC Ruling In a Decision[36] dated November 26, 2015, the NLRC set aside the LA's Decision, and instead dismissed the complaint. It did not give credence to the medical certificate issued by Dr. San Luis not only because it merely summarized the history of Tiquio's illness and his brief physical and neurological examination, but also because it was presented by Tiquio only three (3) months after he filed the complaint.[37] As such, it held that at the time of the complaint's filing, Tiquio had no evidence contradicting the CDP's assessment and findings.[38] In this relation, the NLRC further observed that Tiquio failed to comply with the conflict-resolution procedure under Section 20 (A) (3) [39] of the POEA-SEC.[40] Thus, it ruled that Tiquio's complaint was prematurely filed. [41] Aggrieved, Tiquio moved for reconsideration,[42] which the NLRC denied in a Resolution[43] dated February 29, 2016. Thus, he filed a petition for certiorari[44] before the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision[45] dated February 7, 2018, the CA granted Tiquio's certiorari petition, and accordingly, reinstated the LA's Decision. The CA agreed with the LA that Tiquio suffered a work-related illness on board the vessel, and that the latter had complied with the four (4) requisites provided under Section 32-A[46] of the POEA-SEC, thus, rendering petitioners liable for disability compensation.[47] Undaunted, petitioners sought reconsideration[48] which the CA denied in a Resolution[49] dated August 30, 2018; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly declared Tiquio to be entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. At the outset, the Court stresses that the review in this Rule 45 petition of the CA's ruling in a labor case via Rule 65 petition filed by Tiquio with that court carries a distinct approach. In a Rule 45 review, the Court examines the correctness of the CA's decision, which is limited to questions of law,[50] in contrast with the review of jurisdictional errors under Rule 65.[51] In ruling for legal correctness, the Court views the CA's decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari was presented to https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65357 3/20