6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly reinstatement of the monetary awards contained in the NLRC Decision. On the other hand, Career and Columbian filed a joint Motion for Reconsideration questioning the entire decision and award, and reiterating all their arguments before the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and in their Petition for Certiorari. On April 18, 2013, the CA issued the assailed Resolution denying the parties' respective motions for reconsideration. Thus, the present petitions. Issues The following issues are raised by the parties in their respective Petitions: By Career and Columbian as petitioners in G.R. No. 206826 A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED CLEAR ERROR OF LAW AND IN ITS APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE AWARD OF TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS, SICKNESS ALLOWANCE, AND REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL EXPENSES DESPITE THE FOLLOWING: a.1 Malicious concealment of a past mental disorder is fraudulent misrepresentation. Under express provisions of the governing POEA Contract, fraudulent misrepresentation of a past medical condition disqualifies a seafarer from any contractual benefits and claims [sic]. a.2 Work-relation must be proved by substantial evidence. Convenient allegations cannot justify a claim for disability benefits. In the present case, respondent's allegations that his mental breakdown was due to the maltreatment of Second Officer Dayo is a falsity as the latter had already been signed-off prior to the material period. Work-relation is therefore absent and the claim is not compensable. a.3 Notwithstanding the above, respondent was provided necessary treatment until he was declared fit to work, a fact he himself confirmed and never disputed for almost two (2) years. Clearly therefore, petitioners can no longer be rendered liable for respondent's subsequent mental condition. B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN AFFIRMING THE AWARD OF DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES DESPITE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING OR DISCUSSION SHOWING BAD FAITH OR MALICE ON THE PART OF PETITIONERS.[37] By Godinez as petitioner in G.R. No. 206828 THE LONE ISSUE BEING RAISED BY TFffi PETITIONER IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63469 17/31