8/23/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Petitioners submit the following issues for this Court's consideration: I THE HONORABLE [CA] COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF LAW IN AFFIRMING THE PANEL'S AWARD OF PERMANENT/TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS TO RESPONDENT CONSIDERING THAT THE RESPONDENT'S ALLEGED BACK PAIN WAS NOT THE ILLNESS FOR WHICH HE WAS REPATRIATED. THEREFORE, SAID ILLNESS DID NOT EXIST DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE [RESPONDENT'S] EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT OR EVEN THEREAFTER DURING THE [RESPONDENT'S] TREATMENT FOR VARICOCOELE, BILATERAL. HENCE, THE ALLEGED BACK PAIN IS NOT WORK-RELATED AND NOT COMPENSABLE UNDER THE POEA-SEC. II THE HONORABLE [CA] ERRONEOUSLY HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT IS PERMANENTLY UNFIT FOR SEA DUTIES ON THE BASIS OF THE ALLEGATION THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO PERFORM ANY GAINFUL OCCUPATION FOR MORE THAN 120 DAYS. III THE [HONORABLE CA] PALPABLY ERRED IN AWARDING THE RESPONDENT PAYMENT FOR ILLNESS ALLOWANCE AND MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENTS. IV THE [HONORABLE CA] ERRONEOUSLY AWARDED THE RESPONDENT DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.[48] The Arguments of the Parties Petitioners contended that the CA erred in affirming the award of disability benefits to the respondent for his back pains since there is absolutely no evidence on record that he reported said illness to vessel authorities. As proof, they presented Captain Yamamoto's May 18, 2012 letter which specifically reported that what respondent complained of was "testicle pain and swelling during chamber cleaning. "[49] Had respondent truly complained of and reported his back pains, the ship captain would have no reason to conceal the same. Respondent's claim that the company-designated physician refused to examine him for back pains for the reason that said condition was not included in the referral letter should not be believed for being self-serving and lacking of any substantiation. Petitioners insisted that what is clear from the records is that respondent was only referred for treatment for varicocoele, bilateral. After undergoing the recommended surgery, and after the pain in his operative wounds have resolved and healed well, he was declared fit to work. Petitioners emphasized that respondent made known to them his lower back pains only after his treatment, that is, through his August 29, 2012 letter. The fact that respondent sought treatment for his back pains only on December 19, 2012, or seven months after his repatriation as shown by the medical report issued by Dr. Magtira on even date proved that such illness was contracted after his repatriation. Given that the illness that respondent was elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65134 8/12