6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly a determination (certification) by a mutually appointed doctor, we hold that Dr. Tay's assessment should stand. This being the case, we find no need to discuss the rest of Cabatay's arguments, particularly his claim that he has not been re-hired by the petitioners and that he will not anymore pass a pre-employment medical examination. In any event, there is no showing that he sought a re-hiring with the petitioners and was refused, or that he was ever subjected to a P.E.M.E. and failed it. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE and the March 31, 2011 decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur. [1] Rollo, pp. 3-27; filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. [2] Id. at 40-51; penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Angelita A. Gacutan. [3] Id. at 78-79. [4] CA rollo, pp. 119-134. [5] Id. at 131-134; TCC-FA, Annex "3." [6] Id. at 160-172. [7] Id. at 211-220. [8] Iloreta v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 183908, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 796. [9] Supra note 2, at 9, par. 3. [10] Rollo, p. 55; Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration before the CA, p. 3, par. 4. [11] CA rollo, pp. 299-303. [12] Rollo, p. 16; Petition, p. 14, par. 4. [13] CA rollo, p. 123. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61603 8/10