6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly because he is guilty of fraud in concealing his pre-existing medical condition. Petitioners cannot rely on Section 20(E)[19] of the 2000 POEA-SEC since, as discussed above, it is the 1996 POEA-SEC that is applicable to the instant case. Section 20(E) of the 1996 POEA-SEC provides: E. When requested, the seafarer shall be furnished a copy of all pertinent medical reports or records at no cost to the seafarer. The above-quoted provision does not mention unconcealment. It only requires that the seafarer be furnished a copy of all pertinent medical records upon request. On this point, the NLRC appears to have been misled in ruling that respondent is guilty of concealment. The evidence on record likewise belies petitioners’ claim that respondent was eventually declared fit to work by their designated doctors. Notably, Dr. Reyes and Dr. Abesamis both found respondent to be suffering from recurrent acute psychotic disorder. Dr. Reyes said that respondent’s psychotic disorder will become manifest once triggered by an outside factor, while Dr. Abesamis said that recurrence of the same psychotic disorder is possible. Dr. Abesamis even signed a medical certificate, SSS Form MMD102, supporting respondent’s claim for disability benefits before the SSS. In said medical certificate, Dr. Abesamis indicated her final diagnosis: respondent has acute psychotic disorder, recurrent. Hence, petitioners cannot claim that their designated doctors declared respondent as fit to work after his repatriation and treatment. Without a declaration that respondent is already fit to work or an assessment of the degree of respondent’s disability by petitioners’ own doctors, respondent’s disability is therefore permanent and total. This is equivalent to a Grade 1 impediment/disability entitling respondent to US$60,000 as permanent and total disability benefits under the 1996 POEA-SEC. We are unable to agree with the CA that respondent’s psychotic disorder is an injury as a result of an accident from any cause whatsoever which would entitle respondent to disability benefits amounting to US$125,000 under the CBA. To stress, to be entitled to the compensation under Section 21(a) of the CBA, a seafarer must suffer an injury as a result of an accident. But there is no proof that respondent met an accident and was injured, that he met an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence while on board the Rio Grande. Accident is an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence; something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated; an unforeseen and injurious occurrence not attributable to mistake, negligence, neglect or misconduct. Accident is that which happens by chance or fortuitously, without intention and design, and which is unexpected, unusual and unforeseen.[20] We likewise disagree with the CA that respondent was working under abusive German superiors. This finding is based on respondent’s allegation that his German superiors cruelly maltreated him. We note, however, that this is a bare allegation which deserves careful scrutiny. And we are unable to accept respondent’s allegation as a fact for he elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58968 6/9