6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly arriving at its Decision. We find the petition partly meritorious and rule that respondent is entitled to US$60,000 as permanent and total disability benefits in accordance with the 1996 POEA-SEC. We disagree with the CA that respondent is entitled to the higher amount of US$125,000 under the CBA. The award of attorney’s fees is also proper. The parties agreed in their May 22, 2000 employment contract that they will comply with the 1996 POEA-SEC. Hence, we will apply the 1996 POEA-SEC and not the 2000 POEA-SEC which initially took effect on June 25, 2000 but whose implementation was suspended until the suspension was lifted on June 5, 2002.[16] Under the 1996 POEA-SEC, respondent only needed to prove that his illness was acquired during the term of his employment to support his claim for disability benefits. Section 20 of the 1996 POEA-SEC reads: SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS xxxx B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows: xxxx We have ruled that under the 1996 POEA-SEC, it is enough that the seafarer proves that his or her injury or illness was acquired during the term of employment to support a claim for disability benefits.[17] Here, it is not disputed that respondent became ill when the Rio Grande was in Singapore on November 1, 2000 or during the term of his 10-month employment contract signed on May 22, 2000. The initial diagnosis at the Gleneagles Maritime Medical Center that respondent has acute psychosis confirmed the observation of the Rio Grande’s Master that respondent was confused when he showed up at the crewmess on November 1, 2000. Respondent’s claim for disability benefits thus finds support from established facts. The Labor Arbiter was therefore correct that respondent suffered a psychotic disorder during the term of his employment contract. We also note that respondent was not ill when he was hired by petitioners, as he passed the pre-employment medical examination. The CA also noted the Labor Arbiter’s finding that respondent passed another medical and mental examination in Germany which proved that he was fit for sea duty.[18] We disagree with petitioners that respondent is not entitled to disability benefits elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58968 5/9