5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly development of his hypertension. In addition, the NLRC pointed out that Alberto was already serving his 20th consecutive contract with the respondents at the time he fell ill. At the start of each contract, he underwent the required PEME for which he had been declared “fit for sea service” by the company-designated physician. Under these circumstances, Alberto’s illness could not have been concealed and pre-existing as to preclude him from claiming disability benefits. The NLRC, however, found that Alberto made an April 12, 2004 certification[15] acknowledging receipt in full of his sickness allowance equivalent to 120 days (in the amount of P144,318.03) and payment in full of his medical treatment (in the amount of P1,928,841.27). Since these expenses, in the total amount of P2,073,159.30, have already been paid, the NLRC ordered its deduction from the peso equivalent of the total monetary award of US$68,886.40. Meanwhile, Alberto died on November 1, 2005.[16] He was substituted by his heirs, petitioners Ma. Theresa, Kladine, Christie, Jalyn, Candy Grace and Glizelda, all surnamed Javier. On April 17, 2006, the petitioners sought reconsideration[17] of the NLRC’s resolution that ordered the deduction of Alberto’s sickness allowance and medical expenses from the total monetary award, but the NLRC denied the petitioners’ motion.[18] The petitioners sought recourse with the CA via a petition for certiorari.[19] The CA’s Ruling In its May 31, 2012 decision,[20] the CA affirmed the NLRC’s resolution. The CA brushed aside the petitioners’ claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by Alberto because the petitioners failed to appeal the portion of the LA’s decision that denied Alberto’s claim on these. It also denied Alberto’s claim for sickness allowance because of Alberto’s April 12, 2004 certification.[21] The CA rejected the petitioners’ claim for death benefits. The CA pointed out that death benefits are granted to the heirs of the seafarer only when the seafarer dies during the term of the contract and for causes that are work-related. In this case, Alberto died after his employment contract with the respondents had already been terminated. The Petition The petitioners argue that, as Alberto’s heirs, they are entitled to reimbursement of the expenses that Alberto incurred for his medical treatment. They argue that contrary to the NLRC’s and the CA’s rulings, medical expenses and sickness allowance are separate and distinct from one another and from disability benefits. Under Section 20-B (2), paragraph 2 of the POEA-SEC, employers must provide the seafarer, at their cost, with the needed medical attention for the work-related injury or illness until the seafarer is declared fit or the degree of disability is established by the company-designated physician. This is in addition to the sickness allowance, based on the seafarer’s basic wage, that Section 20-B (3) of the POEA-SEC equally requires the employers to elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57200 3/13