G. R. No. 179177 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179177.htm Nisda, inasmuch as the execution of the employment contract, illness, operation and the filing of the instant case all occurred before respondent Sea Serve was impleaded in the [46] case. Nonetheless, the foregoing pronouncement was deemed functus officio when the NLRC eventually reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed petitioner Nisdas claim for payment of disability benefits on the ground that his POEA-SEC had long expired when his illness arose. The NLRC, referring to Secs. 2(B) and 20(B) of the POEA-SEC, which incorporated the Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels, ratiocinated that: It necessarily follows that in order for an employer to be held liable to the seafarer on account of the latters illness, the cause thereof must arise during the term of a duly approved POEA contract, which obviously did not happen in the case at bar. In addition, complainant violated the Rules and Regulations of the POEA by entering into a contract exceeding 12 months. He even deceived respondent Nobel by deliberately executing another contract without its consent and sans any approval from the POEA. In his 15 years of working overseas, he cannot feign ignorance of that basic requirement. Thus, for not coming to court with clean hands and in order to prevent complainant from profiting from his own deception, basic rules of fair play dictate that we deny complainants claim for [47] disability and other medical benefits. Petitioner Nisdas subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the NLRC for lack of merit in a Resolution dated 26 September 2004. Undaunted, petitioner Nisda filed an original action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals imputing grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, to the NLRC for reversing the 23 July 2003 Decision of the Labor Arbiter. In a Decision rendered on 27 September 2006, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner Nisdas Petition for Certiorari for lack of merit. The appellate court affirmed the challenged 14 May 2004 Decision and 26 September 2004 Resolution of the NLRC, reasoning thus: It appears that on May 5, 2002, as certified by the Dar Al Taafi Medical Services Co., Ltd. In Saudi Arabia, the petitioner sought medical attention from the said institution due to a complaint of pain of parascapular region of 6 months duration with parasthesia and numbness of both upper limbs. [Petitioner Nisda] was diagnosed of having Myositis of Parascapular with Paresthesia on upper limbs. He was thus advised to check his blood pressure regularly. He was repatriated on July 17, 2002. Thereafter, his heart ailment was discovered, then he underwent an open heart surgery. Subsequently, he filed the monetary claims against the respondents. 11 of 29 1/28/2016 1:07 PM