6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly it is too late in the day to question the same on appeal. Moreover, as between the provisions of a mere administrative order and the Republic Act and of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, we are persuaded that the law should be accorded with respect. In other words, R.A. 8042 that confers exclusive and original jurisdiction to the Labor Arbiter and of the Commission, to hear and decided money claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship of Filipino overseas workers should prevail. As to the averment x x x that the award of disability benefits has no basis in law because complainant-appellee has been declared fit to return to his duties, We are more inclined though to agree with the Labor Arbiter's position that there is 'nothing on record that would suggest that complainant is already fit and may now go back to work' x x x. If indeed, the said allegation is to be accorded with respect, how come that herein respondents-appellants did not welcome him back? Moreover, as observed by the Labor Arbiter which we adopt as Ours, 'Furthermore, we find irregular and scandalous the execution by Godinez of the 'Certificate of Fitness For Work' on March 12, 2004, specially so, when witnessed by the company-designated physician. This certification do not deserve evidentiary value, as there is nothing in the POEA Standard Employment Contract requiring the seafarer to certify as to his own health status. Neither can the said certificate bar complainant to his claim for disability compensation. Jurisprudence is replete that waiver and release cannot bar complainant from claiming what he is legally entitled to.' x x x Anent the issue of complainant-appellee's entitlement to sickness allowance in the amount of US$475.00, the respondents-appellants alleged that the same has been reimbursed to him x x x. A closer examination of the alleged Annex 'Q' of their Position Paper, however, would show that this refers to a handwritten 'Medical Certificate-Psychiatric Report' of a certain Dr. Randy Dellosa, which does not show of any payment made to him x x x. The alleged Annex 'Q-1' is also not among the records. Hence, the said finding of the Labor Arbiter must be sustained. The awards for moral and exemplary damages should, likewise, be granted because the instant case falls under the instances when such award is due, considering that the respondents-appellants acted in bad faith in refusing to comply with their obligation and such refusal is clearly tainted with oppression to labor. Attorney's fees is also justifiable because this is an action for recovery of unpaid monetary benefits and complainant-appellee was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights and interests. The ruling of the Labor Arbiter 'holding individual appellant personally liable elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63469 11/31