G.R. No. 168716 5 of 11 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/168716.htm period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits. (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxxxx The NCMB held that the nature of respondents occupation significantly contributed to the deterioration of his psychological condition. Respondents depression was therefore a compensable sickness since it arose out of his employment. In view of the principle of social justice (that those who have less in life should have more in the law), the NCMB awarded disability compensation to him: [17] WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [respondent]. [Petitioners], jointly and severally, are hereby ordered to pay disability benefits claimed by [respondent] in accordance with the [AMOSUP]-CBA in the amount of US$90,000 and attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of the total amount awarded. SO ORDERED. Aggrieved, petitioners assailed the NCMB decision in the CA via petition for [18] certiorari asserting that it committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding disability compensation to respondent. The NCMB erred in applying Article 12 of the CBA since the respondents depression and gastric ulcer were not due to an accident. In a decision dated November 22, 2004, the CA held that Article 12 of the CBA applies when a seafarer suffers an injury (1) as a consequence of an accident that took place on board the vessel or (2) while traveling to and from the vessel on company business or (3) due to a marine peril. Since respondents illnesses were not the result of any of the said circumstances, he was not entitled to disability compensation granted by the CBA. Nonetheless, because he proved [19] that his illnesses impaired him, he is entitled to disability benefits granted by Section 32 of [20] the employment contract. Unsatisfied with the decision of the CA, petitioners moved for reconsideration but it was 1/27/2016 2:08 PM