3/25/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly said vessel." By petitioners' own statement, they reveal their utter lack of concern for their Filipino crew. This kind of attitude cannot be taken to pass by this Court without appropriate sanction by way of payment of exemplary damages, if only to show that the life of a Filipino crew must be accorded due attention and respect by the petitioners. For after all, had it not been for the toils of this crew, among others, petitioners would not be doing as good in their business and making "fortunes in dollars." In affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter, this Court finds that the NLRC never abused its discretion nor exceeded its jurisdiction. Hence, this Court finds no valid basis to disturb the findings of the NLRC. WHEREFORE, the decision of the NLRC dated 29 July 1998, and the Order dated 20 May 1999, are hereby AFFIRMED, and in addition thereto, petitioners are ordered to pay exemplary damages to private respondent in the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). SO ORDERED. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution of 11 February 2000. Hence, the present appeal. Disability Benefits Petitioners contend that the existence and degree of a seaman's disability must be declared by a "company-designated physician" who must be accredited with the POEA. Following this line of reasoning, petitioners claim that private respondent is not entitled to disability benefits because he was found fit to return to work by Dr. Victoria Florendo Cayabyab, the designated physician of petitioners, who is also accredited with the POEA.[7] Disagreeing with petitioners' stand, the labor arbiter ruled that, for purposes of determining compensation benefits under the Standard Employment Contract, an ailing seaman need not have his condition assessed by a doctor or hospital accredited with the POEA. Consequently, the labor arbiter gave more weight to the opinion of the specialists from the Manila Doctors Hospital who treated private respondent and declared him as having sustained a partial permanent disability and unfit to go back to his previous work.[8] Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals held that petitioners' act of committing private respondent for treatment at the Manila Doctors Hospital and of paying his hospital bills therein is tantamount to "company-designation," and therefore, the certificate issued by Dr. Nanette Domingo-Reyes of the Manila Doctors Hospital describing private respondent as suffering from a partial permanent disability should be construed as decisive in the matter of private respondent's entitlement to disability benefits. The appellate court also declared that nothing in the Standard Employment Contract requires the company-designated physician or hospital to also be accredited https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/50003 7/16