1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly discretion and reinstated its initial decision to dismiss petitioner's complaint. It ruled that the findings of the LA, as affirmed by the NLRC, are not supported by substantial evidence.[30] It is undisputed that petitioner's hypertension was a pre-existing condition, yet, he did not indicate it in his PEME form. Thus, petitioner committed misrepresentation which disqualifies him from recovering any disability benefits under Section 20(E) of the 2000 POEA-SEC.[31] Even assuming that petitioner did not conceal his condition, the CA held that a seafarer's inability to resume his work after the lapse of more than 120 days from the time he suffered illness is not a magic wand that would automatically warrant the grant of total and permanent disability benefits. None of the instances when a seafarer may be allowed to pursue an action to claim total and permanent disability exists. Dr. Gonzales pronounced petitioner fit to work on April 10, 2010, or approximately 200 days after his repatriation. The delay was solely attributable to petitioner since he failed to report after his 5th medical examination. The fit to work certification could have been issued earlier had he not absconded.[32] Moreover, the CA held that there is no reason to depart from the settled rule that it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seafarer's disability. The medical finding of petitioner's doctor of choice was made on the same day that petitioner consulted him. Petitioner was not required to undergo medical tests to confirm the doctor's diagnosis. On the other hand, the findings of the company-designated physician were made after petitioner underwent laboratory examinations.[33] Finally, the CA noted that petitioner did not follow the third doctorreferral rule under the 2000 POEA-SEC.[34] Petitioner moved for reconsideration,[35] but the CA denied it through the assailed January 22, 2014 Resolution.[36] Hence, this petition. The issue for consideration is whether petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. We hold that he is not. Preliminarily, the Court's power of review in a Rule 45 petition is limited to resolving matters pertaining to perceived legal errors that the CA may have committed in issuing the assailed decision. Hence, We generally do not review factual issues.[37] Nevertheless, the Court will proceed to probe and resolve factual issues when exceptional circumstances are present. The conflicting rulings of the LA and NLRC on one hand, and of the CA on the other, in this case is one such exception to the general rule. It is thus imperative to review the records to determine which finding is more conformable to the evidentiary facts.[38] I. Petitioner cannot misrepresentation. claim disability https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65565 benefits because he committed fraudulent 4/10