6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Compensation: 1) Masters and Officers (& ratings above AB) 2) All Ratings (AB & below) - US$250,000 -US$125,000 Loss of profession caused by disability (accident) shall be secured by 100% of the compensation.[14] The CA opined that respondent’s psychotic disorder is an injury as a result of an accident from any cause whatsoever and developed while he was working under abusive German superiors. Respondent was also awarded attorney’s fees considering that he was constrained to sue and hire a lawyer to enforce his rights. The assailed CA Resolution denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition which raised the following issues: 1. Whether or not the CBA or the POEA SEC is applicable for purposes of determining if x x x respondent is entitled to disability benefits; 2. Whether or not x x x respondent is disqualified from any compensation and benefits for willfully and deliberately concealing his pre-existing medical condition[;] 3. Whether or not x x x respondent is entitled to full disability [benefits] despite the “fit to work” declaration of the company-designated physician[;] 4. Whether or not x x x respondent is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees despite the fact that the denial of x x x [r]espondent’s claim was done in good faith and based on just and valid grounds[.][15] The issue is: is respondent entitled to US$125,000 as disability benefits and 10% thereof as attorney’s fees? Petitioners claim that the disability provision of the CBA is not applicable since respondent suffered a mental illness and not an injury caused by an accident. They add that under Section 20(E) of the POEA-SEC respondent is disqualified from any compensation and benefit for wilfully and deliberately concealing his pre-existing medical condition. Thus, if respondent is not so disqualified, respondent is not entitled to disability benefits because he was declared fit to work by the company-designated physician. Respondent is likewise not entitled to attorney’s fees because their denial of respondent’s claim was done in good faith. In his comment, respondent maintains that the CA did not commit any serious error in elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58968 4/9