8/20/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 120 days have passed and the company-designated physician failed to give him a disability grading or declare him fit to work. The company-designated physician only gave him a disability grading when he had already reached a maximum medical cure and even then, Segui's condition had not improved. Although he was given a disability grading, the company-designated physician did not declare him fit for sea duty in any capacity. Thus, the CA determined that the NLRC was correct in affirming the LA's Decision in declaring his disability as total and permanent, and awarding maximum disability benefits to Segui.[13] Abosta, et al. moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied in a Resolution dated October 14, 2014.[14] The Issues Presented Unconvinced, petitioners Abosta, et al. filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, before the Court, raising the following grounds: I. Whether the [CA] committed serious and reversible error in affirming disability compensation on the basis of an unproven and unsubstantiated Collective Bargaining Agreement. II. Whether the [CA] committed serious and reversible error in disregarding the uniformed decisional tenet in our jurisdiction that disability compensation is determined not by the number of days of treatment but rather, by the disability grading issued by the company-designated physicians. III. Whether the [CA] committed serious and reversible error in disregarding the uniformed decisional tenet in our jurisdiction that in the absence of evidence of bias, the findings of the company-designated physicians are entitled to great weight and respect. IV. Whether the [CA] committed serious and reversible error in disregarding the uniformed decisional tenet in our jurisdiction that failure of a seafarer to refer the case to a third physician in the event of conflicting findings will result in the dismissal of the complaint. V. Whether the [CA] committed serious and reversible error in disregarding the uniformed decisional tenet in our jurisdiction that attorney's fees may not be awarded where there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of the party being held liable for the same.[15] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64944 5/12