6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly always been the bases for the High Court's decisions. This Arbitration Branch can only apply those which We deem fall squarely on the base at bar. One last note: The respondents are hereby admonished to carefully go over the evidence they present or inadvertently fail to attach. WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING this complaint for lack of merit. All other claims herein sought and prayed for are hereby denied for lack of legal and factual bases. SO ORDERED.[32] Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission Respondent interposed an appeal[33] before the NLRC, which was docketed as NLRC LAC No. (OFW-M) 06-000439-10. On September 14, 2010, the NLRC issued its Decision[34] containing the following pronouncement: Hence, this appeal anchored on serious errors and grave abuse of discretion committed by the Labor Arbiter in dismissing the complaint, with the complainant[35] asserting that the diagnosed illnesses that caused the death [sic] of the seafarer are listed as occupational illnesses under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, and therefore compensable. The appeal is impressed with merit. It must be clarified at the outset that while respondents[36] have argued that complainant was on finished contract, having embarked in June 2007, this contention is belied by the POEA-approved contract clearly showing that complainant's last contract on board the vessel "TAHITIAN PRINCESS" was for a period of ten months commencing on July 8, 2008 or the date of his departure. That complainant was medically repatriated on March 22, 2009 or two months short of the 10-month contract duration is not disputed, and as such the reasonable presumption is that complainant's contract had not expired or [was not] completed, as claimed by respondents. Proceeding to the primary issue in this appeal, we find that complainant's allegation notwithstanding, it is the provisions of the POEA Standard Employment Contract that would have to be applied. The contention that the claim for disability compensation should be based on the provisions of the CBA which provides higher benefits is untenable as it is unequivocally stated in the CBA that disability compensation under said Agreement is conditioned upon a finding that the injury is due to an accident. In this case, complainant was repatriated due to illness, thereby excluding the coverage elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61296 5/20