8/23/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly seeking compensation for, specifically his back pains, is an entirely different illness, which was absent during the term of his contract and even several months thereafter, and not for the varicocoele, bilateral that he was complaining about during his ninemonth contract with the petitioners and for which he was treated upon his arrival in the Philippines, the said illness is clearly not work-related and not compensable. Petitioners contended further that the CA erred when it considered respondent as permanently unfit for sea duties when he was not able to go back to his seafaring work within 120 days for two reasons. First, the 120-day rule should not have been used as basis for the award of disability benefits because respondent's illness is not workrelated. Second, the 120-day rule has been superseded by the 2010 POEA-SEC. The 2010 POEA-SEC and relevant jurisprudence stated that the disability shall be based solely on the disability gradings provided under Section 32 of POEA-SEC, and shall not be measured or determined by the number of days a seafarer is under treatment or the number of days in which sickness allowance is paid. As for the claims for sickness allowance, petitioners averred that respondent is no longer entitled to it as he had already been paid the same as evidenced by check vouchers dated August 22, 2012, September 20, 2012, and December 5, 2012 for P20,000.00, P10,000.00, and P6,000.00, respectively, issued by the petitioners.[50] Neither is respondent entitled to medical reimbursement because petitioners shouldered the costs of his treatments as well as the professional fees of his attending physicians. Petitioners also argued that there is no basis for the award of moral damages in favor of the respondent. First, there is no truth that he was immediately repatriated upon the vessel's arrival in Bangkok, Thailand. His repatriation was by reason that his contract had already ended. Thus, there is nothing fraudulent in his repatriation. Second, there is no evidence that he reported his lower back pains to the company-designated physician. There is also no evidence that the company-designated physician rebuffed his request for the inclusion of his lower back pains in his medical referral. His not being treated for back pains is not tainted by fraud but occasioned by the lack of report thereof. Petitioners have no obligation to cause the treatment of a condition that was not contracted during the term of the seafarer's employment contract. Third, there is nothing questionable about the fit to work certification issued by the companydesignated physician inasmuch as the same had been issued to the respondent after 99 days of treatment. Since petitioners were never remiss in fulfilling their obligations towards the respondent and their acts were not tainted with malice or bad faith, they cannot be held liable for moral damages for refusing to honor respondent's baseless demands. Lastly, petitioners averred that attorney's fees should not have been awarded to the respondent as none of the exceptional circumstances mentioned in Article 2208 of the Civil Code had been shown to exist in this case.[51] For his part, respondent averred that the issues raised by the petitioners are purely factual, which cannot be entertained by this Court in the exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction. Considering that the factual findings of the Panel had been affirmed by the CA, the same must be accorded not only respect but even finality. At any rate, he contended that he had sufficiently shown that his back pains was workelibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65134 9/12