4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Medel, thus, filed a Petition for Certiorari[31] before the Court of Appeals, which sought the reversal of the NLRC rulings for having been allegedly issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Medel’s petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 75893. On November 20, 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision, the dispositive portion of which provides: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the NLRC Decision dated July 31, 2002 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the Labor Arbiter dated July 30, 2001 is hereby REINSTATED with respect only to the award of disability benefits. The award of attorney’s fees in the Labor Arbiter’s decision is deleted.[32] Citing the Court’s ruling in Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad,[33] the Court of Appeals stated that an award of permanent total disability benefits is proper when an employee is unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days. Since Medel’s accident rendered him incapable of performing his usual or customary work for more than 120 days, the Court of Appeals concluded that he was entitled to permanent total disability benefits. The Court of Appeals also refused to accept the veracity of the medical certificate attesting to Medel’s fitness to resume sea duties as the same was issued by Dr. Lim, a physician who the appellate court deemed as not privy to Medel’s condition. The Court of Appeals did not, however, heed Medel’s claims for moral and exemplary damages since petitioners neither abandoned him during his period of disability, nor were they negligent in providing for his medical treatment. Lastly, the Court of Appeals deleted the award of attorney’s fees. Medel filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration[34] of the above decision as regards the award of attorney’s fees. On the other hand, petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration,[35] arguing that the provisions alone of the POEA SEC should apply in determining what constitutes permanent total disability, to the exclusion of the Labor Code provisions on disability compensation. In the assailed Resolution dated May 15, 2007, the Court of Appeals denied for lack of merit the respective motions of the parties. Hence, petitioners instituted this petition, citing the following issues: I. WHETHER OR NOT THE DISABILITY BENEFITS PROVIDED UNDER THE POEA CONTRACT ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THOSE PROVIDED UNDER THE LABOR CODE. II. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55119 6/14