G.R. No. 168716 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/168716.htm [21] denied. The primordial issue in this petition is whether respondent is entitled to disability pay. Petitioners contend that the CA erred in awarding disability pay to respondent. Section 20(B) of the employment contract requires that the seafarer should be declared unfit for work by the company physician. Respondent, in this instance, was declared fit for work by Dr. Cruz. We deny the petition. Just like any other contract, a CBA is the law between the contracting parties and compliance therewith in good faith is required by law. [22] Inasmuch as respondent was a registered member of the AMOSUP, the present controversy should be decided in accordance with the CBA. It is undisputed that respondent fell ill while he was onboard M/V Hual Triumph. This fact was confirmed not only by petitioners accredited physicians but also by respondents own independent physicians. In view thereof, respondent is clearly entitled to sick-pay. Article 10 of the CBA and Section 20(B) of the employment contract apply when a seafarer contracts an illness in the course of his employment. They provide that if, in the opinion of the employer-accredited physician, the nature of the seafarers illness, regardless of its cause, requires a sign-off (or repatriation to Manila), the seafarer is entitled to sick-pay equivalent to not more than 120-days worth of regular wage. However, with regard to whether respondent is entitled to disability compensation, we rule in the negative. Article 12 of the CBA requires: (a) the seafarer must suffer an injury; (b) injury must have been the result of an accident while on board or while traveling to or from the vessel on companys business or it must have been due to marine peril and 6 of 11 1/27/2016 2:08 PM