4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly single medical report which outlined the alleged findings and medical history of Andrada obtained after Dr. Vicaldo examined him only once. It is pristine clear that the examination and treatment of Andrada by Dr. Faylona had been more extensive than the examination conducted by Dr. Vicaldo. It must be emphasized, at this juncture, that the declaration of Andrada's fitness to work by Dr. Faylona on March 14, 2005 and by Dr. Ramos on March 22, 2005, were made well within the 120-day treatment or the temporary total disability period from the date of the seafarer's sign-off. Viewed in this perspective, both the NLRC and the CA were legally correct when they refused to recognize that Andrada was suffering from any disability, whether permanent or temporary, because he had already been cleared to go back to work. Additionally, it is worth pointing out that instead of questioning the assessment done by Dr. Ramos and by Dr. Faylona, Andrada executed the Deed of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim in favor of the respondents on April 21, 2005. By doing so, Andrada impliedly admitted the correctness of the medical assessments, and acknowledged to have “completely released and forever discharged” the respondents “from all actions, claims, complaints and demand whatsoever xxx on account of or arising out of my employment as seaman on board MT Superlady.”[25] Considering Andrada's nonentitlement to disability benefits, this Court does not see the need to delve on the issue of whether the Deed of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim precluded him from recovering said benefits. The Court is not unaware of the principle that, consistent with the purpose underlying the formulation of the POEA-SEC, its provisions must be applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in favor of the seafarers, for it is only then that its beneficent provisions can be carried into effect.[26] Said exhortation, however, cannot be taken to sanction award of disability benefits anchored on flimsy evidence. There is nothing on record that would justify a compensation on top of the monetary aid and assistance already extended to Andrada by respondents Agemar Manning and Sonnet Shipping. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed May 28, 2010 Decision and the December 9, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 109853 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,* Peralta, and Abad, JJ., concur. * Designated additional member, per Special Order No. 1343, dated October 9, 2012. [1] Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and Associate Justice Ruben C. Ayson, concurring; rollo pp. 259-275. [2] Id. at 291-292. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55246 9/11