9/15/21, 8:01 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Period From commencement until February 29, 2016 (already been received by the respondent) March 2016 until December 31, 2016 (DKK 2860* 10) Amount DKK34,253 28,600 January 1, 2017 until December 31, 2037 [(DKK 2860*12)*20] 686,400 January 1, 2038 until June 9, 2038 {[DKK 2860*5]+ [(DKK 2860/30)*9]} 15,158 TOTAL DKK764,411 On the other hand, the maximum disability compensation that can be awarded under the POEA-SEC is USD60,000.00 which corresponds to permanent and total disability benefits. Considering that this amount is significantly lesser than the amount already awarded by the Danish Authorities,[48] the resolution of the issue of whether respondent is entitled to the same is already moot. Otherwise stated, with the offsetting provision under the CBA, whether the Court adjudge the respondent entitled to total and permanent liability under the POEA-SEC, the result would be the same, there is no additional obligation imposed upon petitioner. Necessarily, as the amount awarded by the Danish Authorities in their decision is higher than the maximum possible award under the POEA-SEC, there can be no resulting deficiency. Succinctly, no practical relief can be granted by the Court in this case. It would therefore be unnecessary to indulge in the academic discussion of respondent's entitlement to benefits under the POEA-SEC, as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect, or in the nature of things, cannot be enforced.[49] On a final note, the Court delves on the propriety of the award of attorney's fees. There is no basis for the award of attorney's fees in favor of the respondent since it cannot be said that he was forced to litigate, was left without any recourse or was maliciously withheld of payment of benefits. At the time he filed the instant complaint, his claim before the Danish Authorities was still pending.[50] While he is not technically precluded from seeking relief simultaneously from both fora, respondent's resort to this jurisdiction is his personal decision and one not attributable to bad faith or malice on the part of the petitioners.[51] Consequently, each party should bear its own costs of suit. WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the instant petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138700 dated July 13, 2016, and its Resolution dated January 11, 2017 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Complaint dated June 24, 2013 is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Peralta, C.J., (Chairperson), Caguioa, Carandang, and Zalameda, JJ., concur. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/67062 7/10