6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly SO ORDERED.[19] The CA Ruling On the basis of the NLRC decision, it was then the respondent that challenged the decision before the CA on Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In reversing the NLRC decision, the CA found that: (1) the respondent's medical condition was aggravated by his responsibilities, physical and emotional stress on board the petitioners' vessel;[20] and (2) "there is no denying" that the respondent tried to comply with the three-day medical examination deadline, but was refused and ignored by the petitioners.[21] In so ruling, the CA asserted that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation and disability benefits.[22] Thus, on October 29, 2014, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The Decision dated June 10, 2013 and Resolution dated August 30, 2013 of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission are reversed and set aside, and the Decision dated July 31, 2012 of the labor arbiter is reinstated. SO ORDERED.[23] Hence, this petition. The Issues The petitioners seek the reversal of the assailed decision and resolution by the CA on the basis of the following grounds: A — THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT DECIDED TO IGNORE THE 3-DAY MANDATORY REPORTING REQUIREMENT PROVIDED UNDER THE POEA-SEC. B — THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT RESPONDENT WAS ABLE TO PROVE THAT HIS ILLNESS IS WORKRELATED AND THAT HE CONTRACTED HIS ILLNESS DURING THE TERM OF HIS EMPLOYMENT. C — THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT REINSTATED THE AWARD OF HOSPITALIZATION EXPENSES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.[24] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63966 4/11