set out in petitioner's Position Paper or the relief granted by the Labor Arbiter which was the purported obligation of respondents under an alleged CBA with a local union to pay a specific amount of permanent medical unfitness benefits. We now come to the question whether the Court may award medical unfitness benefits in accordance with the Masterbulk Vessels Maritime Officers Agreement 1999 as prayed for in the present petition. On this point, we rule that we cannot in view of the doubtful authenticity and enforceability of this CBA belatedly submitted by petitioner. A perusal of the photocopies of the Masterbulk Vessels Maritime Officers Agreement 1999 submitted by petitioner to the Court and the Court of Appeals revealed that there were missing pages. The first page of the agreement began with a portion of clause 3. There was no signature page showing that the agreement was duly signed by the representatives of Masterbulk and the union. On some pages, there were page numbers and signatures/initials in the margins but on other pages there were no page numbers and signatures/initials. On the pages that did contain page numbers it was indicated that the document had 24 pages but the copies submitted by petitioner only had 17 pages. Although petitioner was able to submit a photocopy of his identification card as a member of the Singapore Maritime Officers' Union, it appeared on the face of said identification card that his membership expired in September 2000 and it was unclear from the incomplete copy of the Masterbulk Vessels Maritime Officers Agreement 1999 if petitioner is entitled to make a claim under the said agreement beyond the term of his membership in the foreign union. Even more importantly, clause 7 of the Masterbulk Vessels Maritime Officers Agreement 1999 provided that: 7. REFEREE In the event of a dispute arising out of the operation of this Agreement, the matter shall be referred by either party to the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court of Singapore who may select a referee appointed under section 43 of the Industrial Relations Act to hear and determine such dispute.[39] (Emphases supplied.) It likewise does not escape our notice that under the pertinent provisions of the above-mentioned agreement the computation and payment of compensation for injuries depend on the applicable provisions of the Singapore Workmen's Compensation Act which petitioner did not prove in these proceedings. Verily, the application and enforcement of foreign law is beyond this Court's authority, especially in the absence of proof of such foreign law. As we previously ruled in one case, "foreign laws do not prove themselves in our courts. Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proven. x x x."[40]