6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly equivalent at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of actual payment plus 10% thereof as and by way of attorney's fees.[26] Respondents appealed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC's Ruling In a Decision[27] dated April 11, 2013, the NLRC affirmed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC stated that given the medical condition of petitioner as elaborated by petitioner's specialist of choice and with due regard to the observations of the company-designated doctors that complainant's back pain persisted despite surgery and rehabilitation for a period of six months, it was inclined to believe that petitioner was suffering from permanent total disability as he is already permanently impaired in his earning capacity as an Ordinary Seaman or in any other work of a similar nature. Permanent total disability does not mean absolute helplessness. It means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work or work of similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment can do.[28] The NLRC stated that as the vessel MV Elena VE was actually covered by the ITF TCC CBA when petitioner was engaged in the vessel in October 2011, it agreed with the Labor Arbiter's findings that petitioner is entitled to Disability 21 (a) and (b) of the said CBA in the amount of US$156,816.00 as full disability benefit for ratings, including an ordinary seaman. The dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of the respondents is DENIED for lack of merit and the Labor Arbiter's Decision is hereby AFFIRMED in its entirety.[29] The NLRC denied respondents' motion for reconsideration in a Resolution[30] dated June 20, 2013. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the award in favor of petitioner of full disability benefit in the amount of US$156,816.00 under the ITF Standard CBA.[31] The Court of Appeals' Ruling The Court of Appeals stated that the crux of the controversy is whether petitioner's injury is permanent total disability, in order to ascertain the rate of disability compensation that should be awarded to him. The Court of Appeals found that the evidence clearly established that petitioner's injury rendered him permanently disabled, which hindered him from performing the work he elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63243 5/17