6/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [TO THE] MAXIMUM DISABILITY BENEFIT.[29] The Issues The core issues in the present case redound to: (a) Whether the CA erred in denying petitioners' claim for permanent disability benefits. (b) Whether the CA erred in declaring that petitioners are only entitled to financial assistance. The Court's Ruling The present petition is denied for lack of merit. A non-appellant cannot, on appeal, seek affirmative relief. In the assailed Panel of VAs Decision, the claim for total and permanent disability benefits of the deceased seafarer Amadeo was not granted considering that he failed to present substantial evidence to support his claim. Meanwhile, North Sea was able to present the findings of the company-designated physician, which indicated that Multiple Myeloma is not a work-related illness and that Amadeo's work as a Suite Attendant could not have aggravated such illness. The aforesaid medical findings were supported by the medical records of Amadeo indicating the laboratory tests and treatments he underwent, which were made the basis in the findings that his illness is not workrelated. On the other hand, the Panel of VAs held that Amadeo failed to present convincing proof to rebut the medical findings of the company-designated physician. The counsel for petitioners only submitted medical reports of an independent physician after the death of Amadeo. Furthermore, petitioners failed to appeal the findings of the Panel of VAs. It was North Sea who elevated the Decision of the Panel of VAs via a Petition for Review before the CA. Nevertheless, petitioners interposed their dissent to the Panel of VAs' Decision in their Comment and argued that Amadeo is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits and not just financial assistance from North Sea. In the present petition, petitioners reiterated the same arguments raised before the CA. It is well settled and unquestionable that a party who does not appeal or file a petition for review is not entitled to any affirmative relief.[30] Due process and fair play dictate that a non-appellant may not be granted additional award or benefits nor may he or she be allowed to assail or ask the modification of the judgment, which was not appealed by him or her.[31] However, for the purpose of maintaining the assailed judgment, a non-appellant may interpose counter-arguments or counter assignment of errors even if such were not raised by the appellant or the even if the issue was not included in the assailed decision.[32] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66644 4/7