1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Mr. Abundo's pre-injury job requires that he operates some machines and lift heavy objects. He may also be required to use tools to adjust nuts, bolts and screws on some occasions. Mr. Abundo claimed that he can no longer perform these functions because he no longer has the strength in his right hand. Mr. Abundo, with his present condition, he will not be able to perform his pre-injury work because of the physical demands it entails. Some [restriction] must be placed on his work activities. This is in order to prevent the impending late sequelae of his current condition. He presently does not have the physical capacity to return to the type of work he was performing at the time of the injury. He is therefore, UNFIT in any capacity for further strenuous duties.[12] With these findings, the petitioner demanded from the respondents the maximum benefit under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and claimed to be suffering from permanent disability. Instead of granting permanent disability benefits, the respondents offered US$10,075.00, an amount equivalent to a Grade 10 disability. As a result, the petitioner filed a labor complaint against the respondents seeking the payment of sickness allowance, permanent and total disability benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. For their part, the respondents argued: (1) that the petitioner failed to prove that he is suffering from total and permanent disability; (2) that he failed to observe the conflictresolution procedure in the POEA-SEC which is to refer to a third doctor to settle the conflicting findings between the company-designated physician and that of the petitioner's chosen physician; and (3) that the petitioner is not entitled to his claims including moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. The Ruling of the Labor Arbiter In the Decision[13] dated October 30, 2013, Labor Arbiter Virginia T. Luyas-Azarraga (Labor Arbiter) ruled in favor of the petitioner. The Labor Arbiter found that the petitioner's disability is permanent and total based on the pieces of evidence presented. She explained that even after the company-designated physician gave an interim assessment of the petitioner's medical condition under Grade 10 disability, the petitioner was still undergoing rehabilitation.[14] The Labor Arbiter opined that total disability does not mean absolute helplessness. Thus, she concluded that in disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated but rather the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one's earning capacity.[15] For these reasons, the Labor Arbiter deemed it wise to award to the petitioner US$60 000.00 representing the maximum coverage for disability benefit under the POEA-SEC. The Labor Arbiter, likewise, awarded 10% attorney's fees to the petitioner. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65828 3/15