6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the time of his repatriation on August 27, 2009 until he was declared fit to work on December 1, 2009. The company-designated physicians were able to show the detailed procedures and laboratory tests done on Conag. On the other hand, Dr. Jacinto's medical certificate did not specify the dates when he saw and treated Conag, nor the diagnostic and laboratory tests he conducted and the specific treatments and medications he administered, if any, in arriving at his conclusion that the latter suffered from "Herniated Nucleus Pulposus, L5-S1, Right," and was now unfit to work.[24] The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution[25] dated February 28, 2011. Ruling of the CA In upholding the LA decision, the CA found "undisputed" evidence that Conag suffered from spinal injuries which caused his total disability, discrediting as without basis the NLRC's dismissal of Dr. Jacinto's assessment. That he was not rehired by the petitioners is a telling proof, the CA said, of his unfitness for sea duties, after having assessed him as fit to go back to work.[26] On motion for reconsideration,[27] the petitioners tried to show, to no avail, that the award of disability benefits to Conag is without basis because there is no proof that his claimed spinal injury was work-related, since he could point to no incident on board which could have caused it. They claimed that he was declared fit to work by the company-designated physicians pursuant to the provisions of the POEA-SEC, to which he was bound. They further averred that, granting he was permanently disabled, as a bosun's mate, Conag was classified as "rating" only and not a junior officer; and he is thus entitled only to $89,100.00 in disability benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). They also claimed that the CA's reliance on the 120-day rule in the treatment of seafarers is misplaced and attorney's fees cannot be awarded because they are fully justified in denying disability benefits to Conag. Grounds In this petition for review on certiorari, the petitioners basically reiterate the same grounds they had raised before the CA, to wit: 1. Whether the [CA] committed serious, reversible error of law in disregarding the medical findings of the company-designated physician[s] and awarding full disability compensation under the CBA. 2. Whether the [CA] committed serious, reversible error of law in invoking the 120-day [rule]. The [CA's] reliance on the 120-day [rule] is misplaced. Mere inability to work for more than 120 days does not of itself [entitle] [Conag] to full disability compensation. 3. Whether the [CA] erred in awarding attorney's fees in favor of [Conag] despite justified refusal to pay full and permanent benefits.[28] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61899 3/12