The NLRC likewise denied petitioners motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated July 23, 2003.[11] On petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the Court of Appeals found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in deciding for private respondent. It thus affirmed the NLRCs decision.[12]   The subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated August 20, 2004.[13]   Hence, the instant petition anchored on the following assignment of errors: THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER CONSIDERING THAT:   (A)              THE LATTER STUCK TO THIS HONORABLE COURTS PRECEDENT-SETTING RULING IN GERMAN MARINE AGENCIES V. NLRC,[14] THAT IT IS THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN WHO MUST ASSESS THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF DISABILITY OF AN INJURED SEAFARER.   (B)              THE LATTER APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF THE POEAPRESCRIBED STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT; and   (C)             THE COMPLAINANTS INJURY WAS CONFINED ONLY TO HIS LEFT FOOT, AND THUS HIS DISABILITY IS NOT TOTAL, BUT ONLY PARTIAL.     There is no merit in the petition.   We have said often enough that for the extraordinary remedy of certiorari to lie by reason of grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to