6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly respondents, was valid and binding because it was duly explained and notarized by the MECO to him. The dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DISMISSED. The Decision of the NLRC is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.[15] De Andres moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied by the CA in its assailed March 12, 2015 Resolution. Hence, this petition. ISSUES I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REPORTORIAL REQUIREMENT PROVIDED UNDER THE POEA CONTRACT. II THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONER WAIVE [D] HIS RIGHT BY RECEIVING THE SUM OF NT$40,000 (MORE OR LESS PHP 50,000 IN PHILIPPINE CURRENCY) WHICH IS HIGHLY UNCONSCIONABLE AND UNREASONABLE COMPARED TO US$60,000 WHICH HE [WAS] SUPPOSED TO RECEIVE UNDER THE POEA CONTRACT.[16] De Andres argued that the mandatory reportorial requirement should not be strictly applied in his case because it was the respondents who prevented him from complying with the same. He underscored that on the next working day from his repatriation, he immediately reported to Diamond H. Its Operations Manager, however, directly told him that the respondents would not entertain any of his claims. De Andres emphasized that such incident was never denied by the respondents. De Andres also claimed that the MOA was an invalid quitclaim because its consideration was unreasonable. He explained that from the gravity of his condition, which necessitated almost a year of medical treatment and operation, it could be shown that the amount of NT$40,000 or more or less P50,000, was insufficient consideration for disability compensation. Moreover, De Andres pointed out that the MOA was neither notarized nor explained by the MECO, which simply stamped it. Position of Respondents In their Comment,[17] the respondents argued that De Andres failed to comply with the mandatory reportorial requirement because he did not present himself to a companydesignated physician for medical examination within three (3) working days from his repatriation. They also stressed that while De Andres was in Taiwan, he was declared fit elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63281 5/15