membership, it was incumbent upon him to prove it.
We, thus, hold that the NLRC committed a grave abuse of
discretion when it affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision awarding
[petitioner] US$80,000.00 as medical unfitness benefit, despite
the fact that such claim was unsubstantiated by any documentary
evidence.[26] (Emphases supplied.)
However, as it was undisputed that petitioner suffered a work-related injury, the
Court of Appeals still saw fit to award medical unfitness benefits, based on the POEA
Standard Contract of Employment and the finding of petitioner's own physician that
the proper disability grade for petitioner's injury was Grade 11 or 14.93%. Thus, the
Court of Appeals computed petitioner's medical unfitness benefits, as follows:
While it is true that [petitioner's] claim for disability is premature, the fact
remains that there is still a work-connected injury and the attendant loss
or impairment of his earning capacity that need to be compensated. On
this score, Sec. 30-A of POEA Standard Contract of Employment is
applicable. The same provides for a schedule of disability allowances and
per said schedule, an impediment of Grade 11 is equivalent to the
maximum rate of US$50,000.00. Multiply this amount by the degree of
impediment, which is 14.93%, the [petitioner] is entitled to US$7,465.00,
to be paid in Philippine Currency equivalent to the exchange rate
prevailing during the time of payment.[27]
After finding that this case did not fall under the exceptional circumstances provided
by law for an award of attorney's fees, the Court of Appeals ruled that the award of
10% attorney's fees in favor of petitioner was improper. Thus, the dispositive portion
of the Court of Appeals' May 31, 2005 Decision read:
WHEREFORE, the September 27, 2002 Decision of the Labor Arbiter is
hereby modified to read as follows:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
1] ordering the respondents to pay the complainant the amount of
US$7,480.00 or its equivalent amount in Philippine Currency at the
prevailing exchange rate at the time of payment, representing permanent
medical unfitness benefits, plus legal interest reckoned from the time it
was due;
2] denying the claim for sickness allowance, the same having been paid;
3] denying the claim for attorney's fees; and
4] denying the other claims of the complainant."[28]
In his motion for reconsideration of the above Decision of the Court of Appeals,