4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered: 1) ORDERING respondents to pay the complainant, jointly and severally, in Philippine Currency, based on the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of actual payment, the following amounts representing the complainant’s disability benefits: a) Foot injury – US$5,225.00 b) Eye injury – US$20,900.00 2) AND ORDERING, FURTHERMORE, respondents to pay the complainant attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary awards granted to the aforesaid employee under this Decision. All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[18] The Labor Arbiter found sufficient evidence to support Tanawan’s claim for disability benefits for the foot and eye injuries, according credence to the medical certificate issued by Dr. Saguin classifying Tanawan’s foot injury as Grade 12; Tanawan’s declaration —which was not contradicted by the petitioner—that some paint thinner splashed into his right eye on October 5, 1997; and the letter of Dr. Bunuan to the effect that the disability due to the eye injury was classified as Grade 7. The Labor Arbiter discounted Dr. Lim’s certification declaring Tanawan fit to work on the ground that Dr. Lim had no personal knowledge of such fact because it had been the orthopedic surgeon who had made the finding; hence, the certification was hearsay evidence, not deserving of any probative weight. The Labor Arbiter denied Tanawan’s claim for sickness allowance in light of the showing that such claim had already been paid.[19] The petitioner appealed to the NLRC. In its appeal, the petitioner contended that Dr. Saguin’s certification was issued on March 31, 1998 while Tanawan was still under treatment by Dr. Lim;[20] that the disability grading by Dr. Saguin had no factual or legal basis considering that Tanawan was later declared fit to work on May 21, 1998 by the company- designated physician, the only physician authorized to determine whether a seafarer was fit to work or was disabled;[21] that the medical report of the orthopedic surgeon who actually treated Tanawan reinforced Dr. Lim’s fitto- work certification, because the report stated that Tanawan was already asymptomatic and could go back to work anytime;[22] that Tanawan failed to discharge his burden of proof to establish that he had sustained the injury while on board the vessel; that Tanawan did not submit himself to a post- employment medical examination for the eye injury and did not mention such injury while he underwent treatment for his foot injury, an indication that the eye injury was only an afterthought;23 that there was also no elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55096 3/11