4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The CA considered the agency’s urgent motion for reconsideration as a second motion for reconsideration which is prohibited under Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court[27] and also under Section 15, Rule VII of the NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure. [28] The agency takes exception to the CA ruling, reiterating its position that the two motions dealt with two different subject matters, the first motion addressed the merits of the case and the urgent motion was filed on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. It adds that even the NLRC did not consider the urgent motion for reconsideration a prohibited pleading. We find merit in the agency’s argument. Technicalities of law and procedure are interpreted very liberally and are not considered controlling in labor cases. Article 221 of the Labor Code provides that “[i]n any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.” In keeping with the spirit and intent of the law and in the interest of fairplay, we find it both necessary and appropriate to review the present labor controversy. For the same reason, we rule out laches as a bar to the filing of the complaint. The merits of the case Contrary to the conclusions of the NLRC and of the CA, we find no substantial evidence supporting the ruling that the agency and its principal are liable to Nazal by way of temporary or partial total disability benefits. The labor tribunal and the appellate court grossly misappreciated the facts and even completely disregarded vital pieces of evidence in resolving the case. First. Nazal disembarked from the vessel M/V Rover for a “finished contract,” not for medical reasons. This notwithstanding, he claims that immediately after his disembarkation, he reported to Colorado about his health condition and work experience on board the vessel. He further claimed that Colorado referred him to a company-designated physician who found him afflicted with high blood pressure and diabetes. Thereupon, he asked for compensation and medical assistance, but the agency denied his request and allegedly advised him not to work again. Except for his bare allegations, nothing on record supports Nazal’s claim that he contracted his supposed ailments on board the vessel. As the LA aptly observed, if indeed a company-designated physician examined Nazal, why did the physician not issue a medical report confirming Nazal’s supposed ailments? And why did Nazal not ask for a certification of the physician’s findings if he really intended to ask for disability compensation from the petitioners? Under the standard employment contract, the employer is under obligation to furnish the seafarer, upon request, a copy of all pertinent medical reports or any records at no cost to the seafarer.[29] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55870 5/9