Code to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. x x x.[24] (Emphasis supplied.) As for the probative value of the receipts submitted by respondents as annexes to the memorandum of appeal, the Court of Appeals found that: As clearly shown by said annexes, [respondents] had already paid [petitioner] his sickness allowance. In fact, he received a PCIB Check, dated November 28, 2000, in the amount of P41,467.98 on December 1, 2000; another PCIB Check, dated December 14, 2000, in the amount of P45,255.60 on January 10, 2001; an FEBTC check, dated January 25, 2001, in the amount of P48,053.68 on January 31, 2001; and lastly an RCBC check, dated February 14, 2001, in the amount of P43,691.06 on February 28, 2001. All of these documents bear [petitioner's] signature. Thus, he cannot deny that he received said sickness allowance in the total amount of P178,468.32.[25] (Emphasis supplied.) With respect to respondents' claim that the Labor Arbiter's award of US$80,000 in medical unfitness benefits had no basis, the Court of Appeals held that: A careful perusal of the records shows that [petitioner's] claim that he was a member of AMOSUP and, therefore, Article 20.1.5 of the CBA providing for an US$80,000.00 permanent medical unfitness benefits applies in this case, is not supported by the evidence. For one, the said CBA does not form part of the evidence presented by [petitioner] in this case. Instead, what he submitted as an attachment to his Memorandum of Authorities before this Court is a copy of a document entitled "Addendum to Memorandum of Agreement by and between Masterbulk PTE Ltd., Associated Marine Officers & Seamen's Union of the Phils. (AMOSUP), and Magsaysay Maritime Corporation." Said Addendum merely provides: "1. That the Agreement shall be renewed/extended for another one (1) year effective January 1, 2000. 2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement not in anyway inconsistent with the foregoing shall remain unaltered and in full force and effect." Moreover, he did not even present any identification card that would show that he was really a member of the said labor organization. Neither did he present any document that would show that seafarers like him who ply the overseas route were compulsory or automatic members of said labor organization. Since [petitioner] claims such