6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly attorney's fees. The LA gave more credence to the medical report of petitioner's independent doctor, Dr. Garcia, which was based on his personal perception of petitioner's actual medical condition, as opposed to the medical report of the company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz, who was not the physiatrist or the orthopedic surgeon who actually treated and monitored petitioner's injury.[28] The LA further held that since petitioner has suffered an injury on his left forearm and has undergone operation, said forearm is not as stable and strong as it was before the injury, and no business minded manning agency would accept him should he re-apply as seafarer.[29] Aggrieved, respondents appealed[30] to the NLRC.[31] The NLRC Ruling In a Resolution[32] dated March 25, 2013, the NLRC affirmed the LA ruling, but reduced the award of disability benefits to US$125,000.00. The NLRC doubted the credibility of the September 21, 2012 fit to work assessment of Dr. Cruz, considering the lack of finding as to whether the pain persistently felt by petitioner had subsided, gone, or persisted. On the other hand, the NLRC gave more credence to the October 2, 2012 Report of petitioner's independent doctor, noting that it described petitioner's range of motion to be with "[s] lightly limited pronation and suppination muscle strength = 70% of maximum strength,"[33] which could have been brought about by physical impossibility or by the subsisting pain felt by petitioner.[34] While acknowledging that the inability to raise arm more than halfway from horizontal to perpendicular only has a disability grade of 11 or a 14.93% disability rating under Section 32, Shoulder and Arm, Item No. 12 of the 2000 POEA-SEC, the NLRC adjudged petitioner to 100% compensation at US$125,000.00,[35] pursuant to the provisions of the 2008-2011 ver.di IMEC IBF CBA[36] (IBF CBA) presented by respondents, which entitles any seafarer assessed at less than 50% disability to 100% compensation when certified as permanently unfit for further sea duties. It noted that the IBF CBA bore the signatures of the parties thereto, as opposed to the ITF CBA presented by petitioner that was not shown to have been duly adopted.[37] Respondents moved for reconsideration[38] which was denied in a Resolution[39] dated May 15, 2013. Undeterred, they filed a petition for certiorari[40] before the CA. While the certiorari petition was pending before the CA, the NLRC issued an entry of judgment[41] on July 1, 2013 and a writ of execution[42] on August 28, 2013 in the case, constraining respondents to settle the full judgment award.[43] The CA Ruling In a Decision[44] dated June 10, 2014, the CA granted respondents' certiorari petition elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61727 3/13