6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly suffer from his injury and his physician of choice, Dr. Runas, concluded that he was permanently unfit for sea duty. In spite of the severity and prolonged injury of De Andres, the respondents gave him only NT$40,000.00, or its equivalent of P57,000.00.[29] The said amount is even smaller than the lowest disability benefit granted to a seafarer under the POEA-SEC in the amount of US$1,870.00, or its equivalent of P87,220.15.[30] Manifestly, the meager consideration provided by the MOA is not commensurate to the grave and protracted injury endured by De Andres. Second, De Andres was not given any other option aside from signing the MOA. He claims that he was required to execute the MOA; otherwise, he would not be allowed to return home. On the other hand, the respondents did not categorically state that De Andres could return to the Philippines even without signing the MOA. They could not argue that the execution of the MOA was optional and that De Andres had the bargaining power to disregard the agreement or any provisions therein. In other words, he was not given any freedom to decline the execution of the MOA, and he could not be faulted for signing it as it was the only way for him to go home. Thus, the execution of the MOA was a precondition before De Andres could be repatriated. Lastly, the respondents claim that the MOA was explained to De Andres by a MECO representative and was duly notarized therein. A reading of the MOA, however, reveal that the same merely contained a stamp at the blank space provided for the MECO.[31] The one (1) page document did not bear any signature or the name of the alleged MECO representative. In addition, there was nothing in the MOA which stated that the contents thereof had been explained to De Andres. Alone in the dormitory, De Andres was guileless as to the contents of the MOA and he had no other option but to sign the same. Again, this renders suspect the legitimacy of its execution. Accordingly, the MOA cannot be considered as a valid quitclaim because it lacks a reasonable consideration; De Andres was not given any freedom to reject it; and the document was not properly explained and notarized by any Philippine government representative. The present case is similar with Interorient where the employer declined to refer the seafarer to the company-designated physician upon repatriation due to a quitclaim which was declared null and void by the Court. It is a time-honored rule that, in controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence or in the interpretation of agreements and writings should be resolved in the former's favor. The policy is to extend the applicability to a greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law, which is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection to labor.[32] The respondents failed to provide a medical assessment of a company-designated physician Under Section 20 (B) (3), the first procedure to determine the validity of a seafarer's claim for disability benefits is to refer him to a company-designated physician of the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63281 11/15