8/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On petitioner's appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) awarded him permanent and total disability benefits through its Decision dated August 31, 2016. The NLRC ruled that the grading assigned by Dr. Cruz-Balbon was a mere suggestion, hence, it was not a valid and final disability assessment. Dr. Cruz-Balbon's failure to issue a definite and final disability assessment within two hundred forty (240) days rendered petitioner's disability permanent and total. It, therefore, ordered respondents to pay petitioner US$60,000.00 plus ten percent (10%) as attorney's fees.[16] Respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied through Resolution dated December 22, 2016.[17] The Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals Dissatisfied, respondents sought to nullify the NLRC dispositions via a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. They argued that petitioner's illness was not compensable because it was pre-existing. If at all, petitioner was only entitled to Grade 10 rating per Dr. Chuasuan, Jr.'s recommendation. This rating was in accordance with the schedule of disability grading under the POEA Contract. Finally, the award of attorney's fees was improper since there was no showing of bad faith on their part.[18] Court of Appeals' Ruling By Decision[19] dated August 24, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed. It ruled that petitioner's disability was not compensable for it was a preexisting illness, i.e. Osteoarthritis. Too, petitioner allegedly failed to allege and prove that his illness was aggravated by his working conditions. Thus, the 120/240 window was found to be inapplicable. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied under Resolution[20] dated January 25, 2018. The Present Petition Petitioner now implores the Court to review and reverse the Decision dated August 24, 2017 and Resolution dated January 25, 2018 of the Court of Appeals both denying his claim for total and permanent disability benefits on the ground that his illness was preexisting and did not appear to have been aggravated by his employment with respondents. The fact that the company-designated physician gave petitioner a Grade 10 disability rating shows his illness is work-related.[21] On the other hand, respondents maintain that petitioner is not entitled to disability benefits since his illness was pre-existing, hence, not-work related, nor compensable. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65546 3/13