6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly and that moral damages may be paid as well for injuries such as mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, and social humiliation. [Respondents], on the other hand, averred that the medical condition of [Delfin] was not acquired or suffered during the term of his employment, that said medical condition is not work-related, and[,] therefore, the said illness is not compensable under the POEA Standard Employment Contract. Furthermore, [respondents] asseverated that more than two years had elapsed from the time of the tennination of [Delfin's] employment in August 2001 up to the time the claim was filed in November 2003, and thus the illness was not acquired during the period of employment. [Respondents] also argued that the company[-]designated physician neither issued any certification as regards the medical condition of [Delfin] nor conducted a post[-] employment medical examination, after he was discharged from the vessel in August 2001. On 6 May 2005, Pelfin] passed away, x x x[7] Ruling of the Labor Arbiter (LA) Ultimately, the LA rendered a Decision[8] dated May 30, 2005 in favor of Delfin. The LA opined that Delfin contracted his illness during the period of his employment with respondents and that such illness is a compensable occupational disease. Hence, Delfin is entitled to his claims. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents, jointly and severally, to pay complainant DELFIN C. DELA CRUZ, SIXTY THOUSAND US DOLLARS (US$60,000.00) representing total permanent disability compensation, sickness allowance of US$2,140.00 or its equivalent in local currency at the time of actual payment plus ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award by way of attorney's fees. All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[9] Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission On appeal, the NLRC, in a Decision[10] handed down on January 23, 2007, reversed the Decision of the LA. It found Delfrn's claims to be barred by prescription for having been filed beyond the reglementary period of one year from the termination of the employment contract. The NLRC also found no evidence that would establish a causal connection between Delfrn's ailment and his working conditions. Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the same was denied in the NLRC's March elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60112 3/16