5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The CA upheld the NLRC’s findings on the respondents’ full payment of these benefits; it also upheld the deduction of these benefits from the peso equivalent of the total monetary award. The Court finds no compelling reason to overturn the NLRC and the CA’s factual finding that the respondents have fully paid Alberto’s sickness allowance. In this regard, we agree with the CA that the NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in ordering the deletion of the sickness allowance benefit in the amount of P144,318.03 from the peso equivalent of the amount awarded to Alberto. The LA’s grant of sickness allowance despite its full payment is clearly contrary to the provisions of the POEA-SEC; its ruling inequitably resulted in a double payment to Alberto at the respondents’ expense. Alberto’s medical expenses that were paid by the respondents should not be deducted from the total monetary award Similarly, we are bound by the NLRC and the CA’s factual finding that the respondents fully paid Alberto’s medical expenses. However, unlike the deletion of sickness allowance benefits, we find that the CA legally erred in not finding that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the deduction of the medical expenses paid by the respondents from the total monetary award. The NLRC’s action is whimsical and arbitrary for clear lack of factual, legal and jurisprudential basis.[36] As earlier stated, the LA denied for lack of basis Alberto’s prayer for reimbursement of medical expenses. The total monetary award of US$68,886.40 consisted only of the disability benefits, sickness allowance and attorney’s fees. In view of the NLRC’s ruling that ordered the deletion of the sickness allowance from the total monetary award, Alberto was effectively left with only the disability benefits and the 10% attorney’s fees as his monetary award. In this regard, the NLRC had no reason, both in fact and in law, to order the deduction from the total monetary award (US$68,886.40) the amount of P1,928,841.27 incurred (and which the respondents had already paid in full) for Alberto’s medical treatment. As a matter of fact, the LA did not award Alberto any amount as reimbursement for his medical expenses which the NLRC could arguably consider as double reimbursement or payment resulting in “unjust enrichment” on Alberto’s part. As a matter of law, the benefit of medical treatment at the employer’s expense is, as earlier discussed, separate and distinct from the disability benefits and sickness allowance to which the seafarer is additionally entitled. Accordingly, any amount that the respondents may have expended for Alberto’s medical treatment should not be deducted from the monetary award that consisted only of the disability benefits and attorney’s fees. By ordering the deduction from the total monetary award the amount of P1,928,841.27 as Alberto’s medical expenses, the NLRC treated the employer’s liability to pay medical expenses as part of the permanent disability benefits to which Alberto is entitled. The NLRC reached its conclusion even if elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57200 9/13