6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly international conventions, treaties and covenants where the Philippines is a signatory. We also find it apt to point out that Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers Act) clearly states that claims arising from contract entered into by Filipino workers for overseas employment are cognizable by the labor arbiters of the NLRC xxxx In view of the foregoing, We hold that the labor tribunals did not err in taking cognizance of this case. Prescinding, this Court, after thoroughly reading the entire records and weighing all the facts and evidence on hand, found [sic] and so holds that petitioners failed in their duty to prove that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion or had grossly misappreciated evidence insofar as its affirmation of the Labor Arbiter's conclusion that private respondent was entitled to disability benefits in the amount of Sixty Thousand US Dollars (US$60,000.00). As the records bear out, the Labor Arbiter declared private respondent to be suffering from a permanent and total disability because of the psychological trauma and anxiety attacks which resulted from the maltreatment inflicted on him by Second Officer Dayo, private respondent's immediate superior on board 'MV Norviken'. We see no reason to reverse this finding as the same is duly supported by substantial evidence. Significantly, the Labor Arbiter even emphasized that such 'factual findings is supported by the medical opinion on Psychosocial Factors, a risk factor as shown in Chapter 15, P. 543, Kaplan and Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry, Eighth Edition x x x.' Notably, petitioners vehemently deny that private respondent's illness was compensable and take serious exception on [sic] the common findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that private respondent's working conditions on board the 'M/V Norviken' aggravated his illness. To be sure, this Court agrees that '[f]or disability to be compensable under Section 20(B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, two elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract. In other words, to be entitled to compensation and benefits under this provision, it is not sufficient to establish that the seafarer's illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled; it must also be shown that there is a causal connection between the seafarer's illness or injury and the work for which he had been contracted. The 2000 POEA-SEC defines 'work-related injury' as 'injury[ies] resulting in disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment' and 'work-related illness' as 'any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this contract with the conditions set therein satisfied.' Relative to the foregoing, it bears pointing out that this pertinent provision under the POEA Standard Contract is interpreted to mean that it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman's disability, whether elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63469 13/31