6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On February 26, 2010, the LA dismissed[26] the case for lack of merit. The LA noted that Dr. Abesamis declared that respondent's illness is not work-related; therefore, it is incumbent upon respondent to prove otherwise. He further held that even respondent's personal doctor, Dr. Ramos, did not state that his illness is work-related as he; only declared that respondent is not fit for work. Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission Respondent interposed an appeal. He maintained that he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits because he underwent the PEME and was declared fit to work; and his illness transpired while he was in the performance of his duties and during the effectivity of his employment contract. On September 28, 2010, the NLRC dismissed[27] the appeal. It found no sufficient evidence that respondent's illness is work-connected. It decreed that instead of establishing that the alleged hole in his heart was work-related, respondent focused more on his inability to work for more than 120 days. It also explained that respondent's reliance on his PEME is misplaced as the same is neither rigid nor exploratory. It likewise reiterated the finding of the LA that even respondent's personal doctor did not pronounce his condition as Work-connected, and only declared him unfit to resume sea duty. On November 30, 2010, the NLRC denied[28] respondent's Motion for Reconsideration. Ruling of the Court of Appeals Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA arguing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding him not entitled to disability benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. On July 20, 2012, the CA granted[29] the Petition and concomitantly reversed and set aside the September 28, 2010 and November 30, 2010 NLRC Resolutions. The decretal portion of the CA Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the present petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed Resolutions [dated] 28 September 2010 and 30 November 2010 [are] REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, private respondents are hereby held jointly and severally liable to pay petitioner permanent and total disability benefits in the sum of US$60,000.00 and attorney's fees often percent (10%) of the total monetary award, both at its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment. SO ORDERED.[30] According to the CA, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the LA Decision dismissing the Complaint. The CA gave credence to respondent's arguments that he acquired his illness during his employment contract with petitioners; and that his illness has rendered him totally and permanently disabled as he had not been able to perform his customary work for more than 120 days. On March 27, 2013, the CA denied[31] petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, petitioners filed this Petition stating that: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS, REVERSIBLE AND GROSS ERROR IN LAW BASED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: A. In failing to uphold the legal and jurisprudential principle that a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction which is absolutely lacking in this case. B. In utilizing [r]espondent's alleged inability to work for a period exceeding 120 days as sole basis for entitlement to permanent total disability benefits in absolute disregard of the provisions of the POEA Standard Employment Contract making work-relation as a condition sine qua non for compensability of an illness or injury. C. In awarding ten percent (10%) attorney's fees in favor of [respondent solely on the ground that he was constrained to engage the services of counsel contrary to the well-entrenched principle that attorney's fees shall only be awarded upon a showing that the petitioner acted in gross and evident bad faith.[32] Petitioners'Arguments Petitioners posit that no abuse of discretion may be imputed against the NLRC because its findings and conclusions were based on the facts and evidence on record Thus, they claim that the CA erred in setting aside the NLRC Resolutions and in not upholding that a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[33] Additionally, petitioners insisted that the CA erred in granting permanent and total disability benefits in favor of respondent on the sole basis that he was unable to work for a period exceeding 120 days.[34] They argue that since respondent's illness is not an occupational disease then there must be causal connection between his work and his illness. They contend that the burden to prove such connection is upon respondent. They added that there is no proof that the nature of respondent's job increased the risk of his illness.[35] Lastly, petitioners reiterate that the company-designated doctor continuously treated respondent for a period of about four months; that nothing in the records disproves the finding of company-designated physician that respondent's condition is not job-related; that since respondent's illness is not work-related then, the company-designated doctor is not obliged to make a declaration on his fitness or unfitness to work; and, that respondent's personal doctor merely concluded that respondent is "not fit" but he did not also make any elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61832 2/6