6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly As a result of petitioner's injury, his entire left hand was permanently affected and was totally disabled. The debilitating injury he sustained on board the vessel rendered him incapable of performing his tasks. Thus, while the CBA classified petitioner's injury under "loss of index finger (one phalanx)," it has nonetheless disabled him permanently from performing strenuous work as a chief cook. As such, it would be absurd to grant only 4% compensation for the injury sustained by petitioner when the said injury has rendered him totally and permanently disabled. Clearly then, the correct disability compensation due to petitioner under the CBA is 100% "Total and Permanent Disablement" benefits equivalent to the amount of US$100,000. Second, the lack of a so-called "permanent unfitness clause" in the parties' CBA is immaterial in the instant case as there is nothing in the said CBA which prohibits petitioner from claiming total and permanent disability benefits under it. There is no stipulation in the CBA which bars petitioner from receiving the maximum compensation in the amount of US$100,000 as a result of his total and permanent disability. In fact, Section 2.2 of the said CBA provides for a 100% "Total and Permanent Disablement" compensation benefit. At any rate, even if We were to assume arguendo that there exists a stipulation in the CBA which excludes a "permanent unfitness clause," such stipulation is invalid. The law is read into, and forms part of, contracts; and provisions in a contract are valid only if they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.[47] All told, petitioner's loss of his index finger does not preclude an award for total and permanent disability because, in labor laws, disability . need not render the seafarer absolutely helpless or feeble to be compensable. It is enough that it incapacitates him to perform his customary work.[48] The Court has consistently ruled that disability should not be understood more on its medical significance but on the loss of earning capacity.[49] What is crucial is whether the seafarer who suffers from disability could still perform his or her work notwithstanding the disability the seafarer incurred. Evidently, petitioner was not able to return to his job after the injury he sustained on board the respondents' vessel. Records show that the petitioner did not get a new overseas assignment after his disability. This only shows that his disability effectively barred his chances to be deployed abroad as a chief cook of an ocean-going vessel. Therefore, it is fitting that petitioner be entitled to total and permanent disability benefits considering that he would not be able to resume his previous occupation and the probability that he would be hired by other maritime employers would be close to impossible. Lastly, considering that petitioner was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his valid claim, his right to attorney's fees as recognized by the VA is affirmed by this Court. Where an employee is forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his right and interest, he is entitled to an award of attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the award.[50] WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The June 25, 2015 Decision and September 18, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62342 12/17