5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly assistance of US$3,000.00 or its peso equivalent: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED and the Decision dated 30 May 2008 is ordered VACATED and SET ASIDE. A new decision is hereby promulgated ordering respondents-appellants to grant financial assistance to complainant-appellee in the amount of US$3,000.00 in its Philippine Peso equivalent at the time of payment. SO ORDERED.[25] (Emphasis in the original) The Court of Appeals, in its decision[26] dated February 26, 2010, agreed with the National Labor Relations Commission and dismissed Monana's petition.[27] It likewise denied reconsideration.[28] Hence, Monana filed this petition. Petitioner argues that hypertension is a compensable illness, and there was a causal relation between his work and his illness.[29] Pursuant to Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA contract, the right to secure a third doctor’s opinion is optional.[30] Petitioner submits that the findings of independent cardiologist Dr. Vicaldo deserves more credence than those of company-designated physician Dr. Ong-Salvador, who is neither a cardiologist nor a neurologist.[31] Petitioner alleged that Dr. Ong-Salvador signed the report as a medical coordinator, and that she is a dermatologist.[32] Petitioner contends that his disability continued beyond 240 days without any assessment from a company-designated physician on his fitness, thus, his disability must be deemed total and permanent.[33] Petitioner prays for disability benefits and attorney’s fees.[34] Respondents counter that the lower court’s factual findings on petitioner’s nonentitlement to total and permanent disability benefits are well-supported by evidence, thus, should be deemed final and conclusive upon this court.[35] Section 20(B) of the POEA contract provides that entitlement to disability benefits requires that the seafarer’s disability be work-related and that it occur during the contract’s term.[36] Respondents cite the Court of Appeals’ decision at length on petitioner’s failure to prove that his medical condition is work-related.[37] Respondents submit that the company-designated physician Dr. Ong-Salvador’s extensive assessment based on medical treatments should prevail over Dr. Vicaldo’s unsupported medical opinion.[38] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58809 Respondents submit that Dr. Vicaldo only saw 3/17