5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, our Decision dated 8 December 2008 is hereby, SET ASIDE and the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 14 May 2008 is hereby, REINSTATED, granting disability benefits in the amount of US$10,075.00 which is equivalent to grade “10” disability issued by the company designated physician. SO ORDERED.[15] Later, the NLRC denied Sibug’s motion for reconsideration in its Resolution[16] dated July 31, 2009. The CA set aside the NLRC Decision dated May 29, 2009 and reinstated the NLRC Decision dated December 8, 2008. The fallo of the assailed CA Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED and the Decision dated May 29, 2009 is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. As prayed for, the NLRC Decision dated December 8, 2008 is hereby REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.[17] The CA ruled that Sibug was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days on account of his Volendam and Ryndam injuries. Thus, he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefit for both injuries. On February 14, 2012, the CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition. Essentially, the issues for our resolution are as follows: (1) whether Sibug is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits for his Volendam and Ryndam injuries and (2) whether he is entitled to attorney’s fees. Petitioners argue that the CA erred in awarding disability benefit to Sibug by reason of his previous knee injury as he was already declared fit to work after recovery from said injury. Sibug was even able to regain employment and board their vessel Ryndam. They also argue that the CA erred in awarding maximum disability benefit to Sibug in the amount of US$60,000 for his hand injury as he was only assessed with a grade 10 disability equivalent to US$10,075 under the terms and conditions of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration standard employment contract (POEA-SEC).[18] In his comment, Sibug says that the assailed CA decision is correct and prays that the instant petition be denied for lack of merit.[19] After our own review of the case, we find the petition partly meritorious. We rule that elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56804 3/7