G. R. No. 179177 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179177.htm [Petitioner Nisda] based his claims under Section 20(B) of the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing Seafarers On-Board Ocean Going Vessels, most commonly known as the POEA-SEC (Standard Employment Contract). This section specifically provides for the liabilities of the employer for an injury or illness suffered by a seaman during the term of his contract. Primarily, for an injury or illness to be duly compensated under the POEA-SEC, there must be a showing that such injury or illness occurred or was suffered during the effectivity of the employment contract. The same is true with respect to any [48] disability caused by either injury or illness. Hence, the Court of Appeals concluded that: [Petitioner Nisda] is claiming compensation for an illness suffered beyond the effectivity and enforceability of the POEA approved contract. While he was allegedly repatriated due to an illness on July 17, 2002, his POEA approved contract apparently expired on May 22, 2002. He cannot insists (sic) that his illness commenced on May 5, 2002 when he once sought medical treatment in Saudi Arabia because he has not shown any evidence to prove that there is a correlation between Myositis of Parascapular with Paresthesia on upper limbs and his heart ailment. Neither can the petitioner invoke the existence of the second contract to hold the respondents liable to his claims pursuant to the provisions of POEA-SEC. The said contract [49] was executed in violation of the POEA Rules and Regulations. x x x. And the NLRC decreed as follows: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed decision and resolution dated May 14, 2004 and September 20, 2004, respectively, [50] of the public respondent are hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. Petitioner Nisdas Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 10 August 2007. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. The present Petition is premised on the twin arguments that the Court of Appeals erred in (1) affirming the Decision dated 14 May 2004 of the NLRC, which reversed and set aside the supposedly final and executory Decision dated 23 July 2003 of the Labor Arbiter granting disability benefits to petitioner Nisda; and (2) ruling that petitioner Nisda developed his illness beyond the effectivity of his POEA-sanctioned first contract (the 12 of 29 1/28/2016 1:07 PM