6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Notwithstanding petitioner's communication, respondents failed to respond, prompting him to file a complaint for total and permanent disability before the NCMB. Ruling of the VA On October 25, 2016, the VA issued a Decision in favor of the petitioner and, accordingly, ordered respondents to pay him total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of USD95,949.00. The dispositive portion of the judgment states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents are hereby ordered to pay herein complainant the sum equivalent to Grade 1 disability benefits for ratings under the Collective Bargaining Agreement in the amount of NINETY FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FORTY NINE US DOLLARS (USD95,949.00). All other claims are DENIED and dismissed for lack of merit under the law, jurisprudence and equity. SO ORDERED. Aggrieved, respondents elevated the case via a petition for review before the CA. Ruling of the CA The CA granted the petition in the assailed Decision and adjudged respondents liable only for partial permanent disability benefits under the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement amounting to USD40,106.98, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The October 25, 2016 Decision of the Panel of Arbitrators of the National Conciliation Mediation Board (NCMB) in MVA-026-RCMB-NCR-176-05-11-2015 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioners NYK-FIL SHIP MANAGEMENT INC./INTERNATIONAL CRUISE SERVICES, LTD. And JOSEPHINE J. FRANCISCO are ORDERED to JOINLY AND SEVERALLY pay respondent Aldrine B. Ilusticimo the amount of FORTY THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIX DOLLARS AND NINETY-EIGHT CENTS (US$40, 106.98) or its equivalent amount in Philippine currency at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment. The award shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until full payment. SO ORDERED. According to the CA, while petitioner claims to have secured the opinion of a second doctor, no such medical certification from the adverted personal doctor is extant in the records of the case, and that only a copy of the October 16, 2015 letter-request from petitioner's counsel seeking total and permanent disability benefits from the respondents was submitted. The CA likewise agreed with the respondents' postulation that, even on the assumption that petitioner had indeed secured the opinion of a second doctor, petitioner failed to seek the opinion of a third doctor as mandated under the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Agency – Standard Employment Contract elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64175 3/12