4/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly ...AWARDING DISABILITY BENEFIT TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF PROOF OF HIS PERMANENT DISABILITY AND THE DEGREE THEREOF. B ...ARBITRARILY DISREGARDING THE WELL-ESTABLISHED FACT THAT THE ABSENCE OF A DETERMINATION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S PERMANENT DISABILITY AND THE DEGREE THEREOF WAS DUE SOLELY TO HIS FAULT. C ...AWARDING SICK WAGES TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT FOR THE FULL PERIOD OF 120 DAYS NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF A DECLARATION OF HIS UNFITNESS TO WORK OR A DETERMINATION OF THE DEGREE OF HIS PERMANENT DISABILITY. D ...GRANTING THE REIMBURSEMENTS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S MEDICAL EXPENSES DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE LATTER'S TREATMENT WAS DONE BY A PHYSICIAN NOT DESIGNATED OR ACCREDITED BY PETITIONER IN VIOLATION OF THE POEA STANDARD CONTRACT. The main issue is whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in affirming with modification, the judgment of the POEA Adjudication Office. Petitioner admits that private respondent suffered illness which rendered him unfit for work. However, it points out that private respondent did not submit proof of the extent of his disability as required by Section C (4) [b] and [c] of the POEA Standard Contract for Seamen.[1] Without this proof, petitioner argues that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it affirmed the findings of the POEA. Petitioner also contends that public respondents erred in awarding sick wages for 120 days in favor of the private respondent without evidence on record establishing the extent of his disability, which is essential in determining the correct amount of disability benefit. Further, petitioner avers private respondent's claim for refund of the medical expenses should have not been granted by the public respondents on the ground that the physician who treated private respondent was not accredited in violation of the POEA Standard Contract for Seamen. Public respondents held that "in effect, the complainant has substantially complied with the POEA Standard of Employment Contract for Seamen when he submitted himself to the Seamen's Hospital three days after his repatriation from Japan."[2] They also found that private respondent had in fact substantially complied with the post-employment requirements under paragraph 4 [b] and [c] of Section c,[3] of the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seamen. We note that private respondent submitted himself, upon the instructions of the petitioner and AMOSUP, to the Seamen's Hospital, which is https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/50425 3/6