6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Dr. Jacinto also noted that: The patient still complains of pains particularly on ambulation and in the performance of his duties which entails prolonged standing, thus, he was assessed to be physically unfit to go back to work.[20] Thus, when petitioner filed his position paper[21] on June 9, 2010, he contended that the injuries he had suffered while in the service of the respondents entitled him to be compensated. Ruling of the Labor Arbiter After the submission of all the pleadings, the LA rendered his decision granting petitioner’s claims. In finding them meritorious, the LA found the medical assessment of the company-designated physicians unreliable and biased in favor of the respondents.[22] The LA observed that petitioner was injured twice, once while he was assigned to work in the vessel M/V Fayal Cement and, again, on board the M/V Ibis Arrow. Also, the LA personally observed petitioner to have difficulty in walking, bending and carrying any weight and concluded that the diagnosis of Dr. Jacinto was more credible and superior than the findings of the company-designated physicians.[23] As to petitioner’s claim for 130 days of sick wages, the LA also found it to be meritorious but limited it to $1,986.38, considering that the respondents had already paid a portion of it. The LA likewise sustained his claim for damages and attorney’s fees, opining that the respondents acted in bad faith when they unjustifiably refused to give what was due him under the circumstances. Ruling of the NLRC As stated above, the NLRC reversed the LA ruling. The NLRC was of the considered view that the finding of Dr. Lim that petitioner was fit to work should have been given credence, considering the time and effort that he spent in monitoring and treating his condition. The NLRC noted that he was under the care of Dr. Lim from November 17, 2009 until he was declared fit to work on December 21, 2009. It also found that there was neither any medical evidence to dispute Dr. Lim’s findings nor any proof that he questioned the findings of Dr. Chua. The NLRC concluded that his open fracture must have been sustained after he was declared fit to work on December 21, 2009. [24] Ruling of the Court of Appeals The CA opined, as the NLRC did, that the findings of Dr. Lim and Dr. Chua should have been given credence. For the appellate court, the extensive medical attention given by the company-designated physicians to petitioner from the very beginning enabled them to be familiar with, and acquire a detailed knowledge of, his medical condition, as elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58873 3/13