5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly medical condition.[36] Also, they posited that there lies no factual or legal basis justifying the award of moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.[37] The LA Ruling In a Decision[38] dated May 29, 2009, the LA ordered respondents to jointly and severally pay Hipe the sum of: (a) US$89,100.00 as permanent disability benefits, as well as US$2,915.00 as sickness allowance, to be paid in Philippine currency at the time of payment; (b) P200,000.00 as exemplary damages; (c) P200,000.00 as moral damages; and (d) attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award.[39] The LA found that Hipe was medically repatriated as a consequence of an accident which transpired on board respondents’ vessel during the course of his employment, [40] and that his injuries had caused him to be unfit for sea work permanently.[41] The LA gave more credence to Dr. Garduce’s findings as being more reflective of Hipe’s actual physical condition, compared to that of the company-designated physician which was “palpably self-serving and biased” in favor of respondents.[42] Unconvinced, respondents filed an appeal[43] to the NLRC. The NLRC Ruling In a Decision[44] dated March 17, 2010, the NLRC reversed and set aside the LA Ruling and dismissed Hipe’s complaint for permanent disability compensation. It found that Hipe was repatriated due to the expiration of his six-month employment contract, not for medical reasons, and that the delay in his repatriation was because the ship has not reached the port.[45] Corollarily, it found the CBA provisions on sick pay inapplicable.[46] Moreover, the NLRC observed that the averred CBA which contains essentially the same provisions as the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) with regard to (a) the authority of the company-designated physician to assess a seafarer’s disability, (b) the right of the seafarer to seek another opinion, and (c) the opinion from a third doctor jointly nominated by the parties whose assessment shall be final and binding, was not complied with by the parties in this case.[47] Accordingly, the NLRC held that the fit-towork certification of the company-designated physician who has treated Hipe over a period of time should prevail over the finding of the latter’s physician who has examined him only once.[48] Hipe moved for reconsideration[49] which the NLRC, however, denied in a Resolution dated June 22, 2010, prompting the filing of a petition for certiorari before the CA.[50] The CA Proceedings In a Decision[51] dated January 31, 2011, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari, and thereby upheld the NLRC Ruling in toto. It fully subscribed to the findings of the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58331 3/12