8/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Overseas Employment Administration regulations.[93] The disability claims internalize the costs of injury and hazards by making employers compensate the seafarers without the need to bargain for the amount and process of compensation. When employers internalize the costs of the harm caused, they are constrained to both comply with legal standards and invest in the seafarers' safety.[94] On the other hand, seafarers are also constrained to internalize the cost of their injuries if they will not take precautions.[95] This policy provides an incentive for the seafarers to work efficiently because the risks to occupational hazards are reduced. By internalizing the externalities through legal standards, both employers and seafarers are encouraged to work at an efficient level. In cases of worker's compensation, no fault is needed to be ascribed to employers for the seafarers to qualify for disability compensation. This no-fault system guarantees injured employees a "relatively swift and certain compensation for their job-related harms. The system relieves employees and their employers of the costs of demonstrating and challenging fault, respectively."[96] Thus, to be compensated under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, seafarers only need to prove that: (1) an injury is work-related; and (2) it occurred during the period indicated in a seafarer's employment contract.[97] V In Sharpe Sea Personnel, Inc. v. Mabunay, Jr.,[98] this Court awarded damages in favor of the seafarer due to the company's belated release of disability assessment and its scheme to discredit the findings of a seafarer's doctor for noncompliance with the third doctor rule. These were considered as acts of bad faith that justified the award of damages: By not timely releasing Dr. Cruz's interim disability grading, petitioners revealed their intention to leave respondent in the dark regarding his future as a seafarer and forced him to seek diagnosis from private physicians. Petitioners' bad faith was further exacerbated when they tried to invalidate the findings of respondent's private physicians, for his supposed failure to move for the appointment of a third-party physician as required by the POEA-SEC, despite their own deliberate concealment of their physician's interim diagnosis from respondent and the labor tribunals. Thus, this Court concurs with the Court of Appeals when it stated: We also grant petitioner's prayer for moral and exemplary damages. Private respondents acted in bad faith when they belatedly submitted petitioner's Grade 8 disability rating only via their motion for reconsideration before the NLRC. By withholding such disability rating from petitioner, the latter was compelled to seek out opinion from his private doctors thereby causing him mental anguish, serious anxiety, and wounded feelings, thus, entitling him to moral damages of P50,000.00. Too, by way of example or correction for the public good, exemplary damages of P50,000.00 is awarded.[99] (Citation omitted) https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65396 13/20