8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly presented a copy of the results of the coronary angiography, itself, but did not. Due to such failure of the private respondents, there arises a presumption that such evidence, if presented, would be prejudicial to it. Assuming that private respondent's company-designated physician made a typographical error. The said progress report could be interpreted to mean that petitioner had an "anomalous origin of the right coronary artery from the left coronary sinus." Studies have shown that anomalies of this kind rarely happens. It was then found that this kind of anomaly may lead to sudden death or myocardial ischemia without exhibiting any symptoms. Nevertheless, this anomaly can be surgically treated. It was not clear, however, from the records of this case if petitioner was treated for such anomaly. Neither was there any showing that petitioner was able to work again as a fitter without putting his life in peril. Thus, We find that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in deleting the labor arbiter's award of total and permanent disability compensation of US$60,000.00 (US$50,000,00 x 120%), in accordance with Section 32 of the 2010 POEA-SEC.[38] (emphases supplied; citations omitted) The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 20, 2016 and Resolution dated October 27, 2016, both issued by the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC No. 05000379-16 are hereby REVERSED. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 19 April 2016 is hereby AFFIRMED and REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.[39] Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the May 9, 2018 CA Resolution. ISSUE The main issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not respondent is entitled to disability compensation under the POEA-SEC and/or the CBA. Petitioners' Arguments Petitioners assail the CA's finding that respondent's aortic valve stenosis is workrelated. Considering that respondent failed to establish the causal relationship between his illness and the nature of his work duties, petitioners argue that the CA clearly erred in holding that he was entitled to permanent and total disability compensation. The mere fact that respondent was declared fit for sea duty prior to hiring does not prove that he https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65335 7/24