4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly mental disorder, no evidence, witness, or any medical report was given to support her claim of Jacinto's insanity. The record does not even show when the alleged insanity of Jacinto did start. Homesickness and/or family problems may result to depression, but the same does not necessarily equate to mental disorder. The issue of insanity is a question of fact; for insanity is a condition of the mind not susceptible of the usual means of proof. As no man would know what goes on in the mind of another, the state or condition of a person’s mind can only be measured and judged by his behavior. Establishing the insanity of an accused requires opinion testimony which may be given by a witness who is intimately acquainted with the person claimed to be insane, or who has rational basis to conclude that a person was insane based on the witness’ own perception of the person, or who is qualified as an expert, such as a psychiatrist.[8] No such evidence was presented to support respondent's claim. The Court commiserates with the respondent, but absent substantial evidence from which reasonable basis for the grant of benefits prayed for can be drawn, the Court is left with no choice but to deny her petition, lest an injustice be caused to the employer. Otherwise stated, while it is true that labor contracts are impressed with public interest and the provisions of the POEA-SEC must be construed logically and liberally in favor of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels, still the rule is that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed with in the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence.[9] WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 79966, dated July 8, 2004, and its January 17, 2005 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The February 20, 2003 and July 31, 2002 Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR OFW Case No. (M) 01-06-1144-00, affirming the February 12, 2002 Decision of the Labor Arbiter, are hereby REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad, Mendoza, and Perez,* JJ., concur. * Designated Acting Member, per Special Order No. 1299 dated August 28, 2012. [1] Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok, with Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Danilo B. Pine, concurring; rollo, pp. 40-47. [2] Id. at 49-50. [3] CA rollo, pp. 27-37. [4] Id. at 38-39. [5] Id. at 21-26. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55220 6/7