3/25/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Concerning the sickness wage, respondents averred that the same had already been paid. However, there is no evidence that the same has been paid except the payment to the complainant of P49,546.00. Since complainant's salary as US$870 and a seaman's sick wage entitlement is fixed to a maximum of 120 days, his "sickness wages would rest to a total sum of US$3,480 or its peso equivalent. On this, complainant has been paid only [P]49,546.00 (US$1,943), thereby leaving for complainant a balance of US$1,537. Finally, it is also argued that as regards the balance, the same has been paid citing as proof the Sickness Release and Quitclaim signed by complainant (Annexes "C" & "C-1"). Complainant, on the other hand denied this, and contended that the quitclaim and release is invalid. Considering that there is no proof on record that this balance of US$1,537 was paid, unlike the P49,546.00, the same is granted. WHEREFORE, premises above-considered, a decision is hereby issued ordering respondent German Marine Agencies Inc. to pay complainant the following sums: (a) Disability benefit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - US$25,000.00 (b) Sickness wage balance - - - - - - - - - - US$1,137.00 all in the aggregate of Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred Thirty Seven Dollars (US$26,137.00) or its peso equivalent, the claim for damages being hereby dismissed for lack of merit, plus ten (10%) percent attorney's fees. SO ORDERED. On 29 July 1998, the NLRC[3] affirmed the labor arbiter's decision in toto and declared that the latter's findings and conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.[4] After its motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC on 20 May 1999, petitioners repaired to the Court of Appeals.[5] The appellate court's assailed decision was promulgated on 1 December 1999, upholding the decision of the NLRC, with the modification that petitioners were ordered to pay private respondent exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00. The appellate court reasoned out its decision,[6] thus The basic issue here is: Whether or not petitioner is liable to pay private respondent's claim as awarded by the NLRC, and whether or not there was abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in affirming such decision on appeal? To resolve this issue, this Court took time in looking closely at the pertinent provision of the Standard Employment Contract Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels, particularly PART II, SECTION C, par. no. 4 (c), and par. no. 5, which states as follows: "SECTION C. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS "4. The liabilities of the employer when the seaman https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/50003 4/16