WHEREFORE, premises considered, this case is remanded to the Arbitration branch of origin for further proceedings to determine the degree of impediment of complainant [Suganob] with the aid of either a private or public physician to be chosen or agreed upon by the parties. SO ORDERED.[8] From the said decision, Suganob filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review[9] which the appellate court treated as a petition for certiorari. Despite the objection of petitioners that the remedy availed of by Suganob was incorrect, the Court of Appeals also later rendered judgment in favor of Suganob on April 29, 2005. The dispositive portion of said decision reads: WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed decision and resolution of public respondent [NLRC] are hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE and the decision of the Labor Arbiter REINSTATED and AFFIRMEDwith modification that the award of attorneys fees is hereby DELETED. SO ORDERED.[10] Petitioners now come before us raising the following issues:   I. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS WHEN IT ENTERTAINED PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ERRONEOUS PETITION UNDER RULE 43 AND TREATED THE SAME AS BEING FILED UNDER RULE 65. II. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR WHEN IT NULLIFIED AND ANNULLED THE DECISION OF THE NLRC DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING OF GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE LATTERS PART. III. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS WHEN IT REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED THE RULING OF THE LABOR ARBITER AWARDING DISABILITY BENEFITS TO THE RESPONDENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE ESTABLISHED FACTS THAT RESPONDENTS ILLNESS IS NOT WORK-RELATED AND THAT RESPONDENT HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLARED FIT TO WORK. IV.