6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly DISCRETION IN MODIFYING AND REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES. [38] The Parties' Respective Arguments In G.R. No. 206826. In their Petition and Reply,[39] Career and Columbian insist that Godinez's failure to disclose his past medical record amounts to fraudulent concealment which disqualifies him from receiving the benefits and claims he seeks; that it was erroneous for the CA to simply assume that this fact merely slipped Godinez's mind during the PEME; that the PEME itself contained a certification, which Godinez read and signed, that any false statement made therein shall disqualify him from any benefits and claims; that Godinez's condition is not work-related; that Dayo's alleged maltreatment is not supported by any other evidence, such as written statements of other crewmembers; that on the contrary, it has been sufficiently shown that Dayo was no longer aboard the vessel during the period that Godinez claims Dayo maltreated him; that it has been opined and certified by the company-designated medical facility in a February 6, 2004 medical report that Godinez's illness is not an occupational disease, but a mere symptom of genetic defects, developmental problems, and psychological stresses; that even assuming that Godinez's misrepresentation is excusable and his illness is work-related, he was nonetheless afforded full medical treatment and was cured and declared fit for work by the company-designated medical facility in a March 12, 2004 medical progress report; that Godinez himself declared that he was cured and fit for work by way of his March 12, 2004 Certificate of Fitness for Work; and, that Dellosa's February 27, 2006 Medical Certificate/Psychiatric Report actually declared that Godinez was fit for work. As for the other monetary awards, Career and Columbian argue that moral and exemplary damages may not be awarded to Godinez, absent malice and bad faith on their part. On the award of attorney's fees, they claim that this must be deleted as well, since they are not at fault and did not conduct themselves in bad faith and with malice. Thus, they pray that the assailed CA dispositions be reversed and set aside; that Godinez's labor case be ordered dismissed; and that he be ordered to return the amount of P4,105,276.07 which was advanced to him by virtue of a premature execution of the judgment award. In his Comment[40] seeking denial of the Petition and reinstatement of the NLRC's April 30, 2008 Decision, Godinez reiterates that his illness is compensable as it is workrelated; that there is no fraudulent concealment on his part; that permanent and total disability has been shown to exist and was caused and triggered by the harsh and cruel treatment he received while aboard "M/V Norviken," as well as by conditions of work, such as "confined living quarters, motion of the ship, exposure to varied climatic conditions, lack of stability in hours [of] work, noise and vibrations from engines and equipment, exposure to irritant substances, inadequate nutrition, overheated surroundings and inadequate physical work combined with monotony and mental stress resulting from larger and more automated vessels, x x x seasickness x x x unsuitable [food] and water supplies on board, improper eating habits, and intemperate behavior while ashore,"[41] and psychosocial factors and stressors in the work environment, such as "role ambiguity, role conflicts, discrimination, supervisor-supervisee conflicts, work elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63469 18/31