5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The present petition essentially raises the question – whether Alberto’s medical expenses and sickness allowance should be deducted from his disability benefits. This is a question of law that falls well within the Court’s power in a Rule 45 petition. Underlying this question of deductibility is another legal question of whether these benefits – medical expenses, sickness allowance and disability benefits – are separate and distinct from one another. A complete determination of this petition’s legal issues, however, requires resolution of the intimately related but largely factual issue of whether the respondents had already paid Alberto his medical expenses and sickness allowance. Since this is a question of fact, it is generally not within the scope of our Rule 45 jurisdiction except to the extent necessary to determine whether the CA correctly affirmed, for lack of grave abuse of discretion, the NLRC decision that ordered the deduction from the LA’s total monetary award the sickness allowance and the expenses the respondents incurred for Alberto’s medical treatment. In the present case, we see no reason to disturb the NLRC and CA’s uniform factual finding on the issue of payment of sickness allowance and medical expenses. This factual conclusion, however, totally does not support the NLRC’s legal conclusion, ordering the deduction of the medical expenses from the total monetary award. As our subsequent discussion will show, the NLRC’s action is nothing short of grave abuse of discretion. The seafarer is entitled to medical treatment at cost to the employer apart from disability benefits and sickness allowance The employment of seafarers and its incidents are governed by the contracts they sign every time they are hired or rehired. These contracts have the force of law between the parties as long as their stipulations are not contrary to law, morals, public order or public policy.[24] Every seaman and the vessel owner (directly or represented by a local manning agency) are required to execute the POEA-SEC as a condition sine qua non to the seafarer’s deployment for overseas work.[25] While the seafarers and their employers are governed by their mutual agreements, the POEA rules and regulations require that the POEA-SEC, which contains the standard terms and conditions of the seafarers’ employment in foreign ocean-going vessels, be integrated in every seafarer’s contract.[26] In the present case, Section 20-B of the 2000 POEA-SEC[27] (the governing POEA-SEC at the time the respondents employed Alberto in 2003) is the applicable provision. Under this section, the employers assume several kinds of liabilities to the seafarer for any work-related illness or injury that the seafarer may have suffered during the term of the contract. It reads in full: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57200 5/13