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