4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly and in deleting the award of attorney's fees. The Court's Ruling The petition is granted. Preliminarily, petitioner argues that the CA should not have entertained TSPI's appeal before it since: (1) the PYA decision had already become final and executory considering the lapse of the ten (10)-day period from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by the parties; and (2) in any event, the petition was not timely filed because it was not sent to his counsel of record. However, records show that petitioner never advanced these issues before the CA despite receipt of TSPI 's Manifestation[39] explicating that the petition was inadvertently served to a different counsel and that the same was immediately rectified by sending a copy of the same to petitioner's counsel of record by personal service. In fact, petitioner did not submit[40] any comment to the petition notwithstanding receipt[41] of the CA's directive to do so, nor raised the issues in his motion for reconsideration.[42] Having failed to bring up the matter before the CA, the latter cannot be faulted in giving due course to the petition. This notwithstanding, the Court nonetheless finds that the CA erred in modifying the PVA Decision when it held that petitioner is entitled only to partial and permanent disability benefits and in deleting the award of attorney's fees. It is doctrinal that the entitlement of seamen on overseas work to disability benefits is a matter governed not only by medical findings but by law and contract. The pertinent statutory provisions are Articles 197 to 199[43] of the Labor Code in relation to Section 2 (a), Rule X of the Rules implementing Title II, Book IV of the said Code, while the relevant contracts are the POEA-SEC, which is a standard set of provisions that is deemed incorporated in every seafarer's contract of employment; the parties' CBA, if any; and the employment agreement between the seafarer and his employer. In this case, petitioner entered into a contract of employment with TSPI in accordance with the 2010 POEA-SEC which, as borne from the records, was covered by an overriding IBF-PSU TCC Agreement[44] (CBA) that was effective from February 20, 2014 to February 19, 2016. During the course of his employment and while in the performance of his duties on board the vessel M.T. Al Marrouna, petitioner complained of sudden blindness in his left eye, among others. He was later diagnosed to have Left Eye Endophthalmitis with Orbital Cellulitis that caused his repatriation on July 10, 2015, or during the effectivity of the CBA, and resulted to permanent loss of vision in one eye which rendered him unfit for further sea duties. Under Section 20 (A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, the employer shall be liable for disability benefits only when the seafarer suffers from a work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract. A work-related illness is defined as "any sickness as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this Contract with the conditions set therein satisfied." Here, while petitioner's diagnosed condition is not among the listed occupational diseases under Section 32-A of the 2010 POEA-SEC, Section 20 (A) (4) https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66115 4/12