4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly respondents issued on June 28, 2007 a Certification stating that David has been given a “permanent disability Grade One (1)”[17] by the Marine Medical Services, viz: CERTIFICATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify that MR. JESSIE V. DAVID, a resident of Block 3 Lot 4, NWSA Compound Tondo, Manila, has been given a permanent disability Grade of One (1) by Marine Medical Services. This certification is being issued 28th day of June 2007 for whatever legal purpose it may serve him best. Very truly yours, OSG SHIPMANAGEMENT MANILA INC. As Agent Only, acting for and in behalf of the Owners (SGD.) MS. MA. CRISTINA G. PARAS President Due to his condition, David underwent chemotherapy per the advice of the companydesignated physician. However, despite several requests, respondents refused to shoulder David’s expenses and medication. Hence, after an unsuccessful grievance proceeding, David filed on September 17, 2007 a complaint against respondents for total and permanent disability benefits, medical and transportation expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.[18] In his Decision of March 31, 2008 finding for David, Labor Arbiter (LA) Legerio V. Ancheta noted that there was no categorical denial on the part of respondents that David’s disability was not work-related. Instead, respondent OSG Manila, through its President, issued a certification that David has a Grade I disability. According to LA Ancheta, this certification should bind the respondents.[19] Hence, LA Ancheta declared David to be permanently and totally disabled, entitled to be paid his total disability compensation, plus damages and attorney’s fees in the total amount of USD 115,500 and PhP 426,645.69.[20] The NLRC affirmed the Decision of the LA in toto holding that the respondents, by certifying David’s Grade I disability and by paying his sickness allowance, are estopped from impugning the work-related nature of David’s illness.[21] Undaunted, respondents elevated the case to the CA. In its Decision dated March 11, 2011, the appellate court ruled against David’s entitlement to the benefits he claimed, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55191 3/12