typewritten opinion[13] dated June 4, 2001, stating that: IF BONE GRAFTING WAS DONE AND THE BONE HEALED, THEN HE WILL BE ABLE TO GO BACK TO SEA DUTIES. IF THE LEFT FOREARM IS LEFT AS IS, THEN, THERE WILL BE PAIN AND INABILITY TO TURN THE FOREARM CAUSING DISABILITY. THE DISABILITY THEN WILL BE GRADE 10. Further citing Section 20(B)(2) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, respondents claimed that, although it was their obligation to repatriate an injured or sick seaman and pay for his treatment and sick leave benefits until he is declared fit to work or his degree of disability has been clearly established by the company designated physician, it was allegedly petitioner's correlative obligation to submit himself for medical examination and treatment to determine if he is still fit to work or to establish the degree of his disability.[14] Respondents made known their willingness to shoulder the cost of the operation or procedure needed but it was allegedly petitioner who refused to undergo the operation in bad faith and in contravention of the terms of the employment contract.[15] Further, respondents argued that they were not liable for damages and attorney's fees for there was no bad faith or ill motive on their part.[16] In a Decision dated September 27, 2002, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner and awarded him the amount of US$3,614.00 as sickness allowance; US$80,000.00 "representing [his] permanent medical unfitness benefits under the pertinent provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement";[17] and attorney's fees. Respondents appealed the Labor Arbiter's decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), contending, in addition to their previously proffered arguments, that they have already paid petitioner's sickness allowance[18] and that the Labor Arbiter had no basis to award disability compensation for failure of petitioner to present the CBA and proof of membership to AMOSUP. The NLRC dismissed respondents' appeal in a Decision[19] dated August 20, 2003 and subsequently denied their motion for reconsideration.[20] Undeterred, respondents filed a petition for certiorari[21] with the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated May 31, 2005, the Court of Appeals noted that the NLRC appeared to have followed the rule that the conclusions of the Labor Arbiter when sufficiently corroborated by the evidence on record must be accorded respect by the appellate tribunals and thus, the NLRC no longer examined the evidence submitted by respondents to prove payment of petitioner's sickness allowance.[22] However, relying on our decision in Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[23] the Court of Appeals held that: Although said evidence were filed for the first time on appeal, it would have been prudent upon the NLRC to look into them since it was not bound by the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity. In fact, labor officials are mandated by Article 221 of the Labor