9/15/21, 8:01 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The entitlement of seafarers to disability is a matter governed not only by medical findings but also by contract and by law. By contract, the POEA-SEC under Department Order No. 4, series of 2000, of the Department of Labor and Employment and the parties' CBA. By law, the Labor Code provisions on disability applies.[35] On the first issue, the Court agrees with the NLRC. The CBA should be applied in determining the rights of the parties in this case as it remained effective even after its expressed duration. As succinctly explained by the NLRC in its Decision: True, on its face, the CBA covers the period 1 February 2008 to 31 January 2010 only. However, Article 21 thereof provides, thus: ARTICLE 21 – DURATION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT This agreement shall be effective as from February 1, 2008 until January 31, 2010 and further if notification of termination has not been given neither by the DSA nor by the AMOSUP within a 3 months' notice before the date of expiration. It is clear from the above provision that the CBA's life extends beyond 31 January 2010 absent a notification of termination by either party. In this regard, records are bereft of evidence evincing that such notification had been made. This is quite telling given that Complainant could have easily produced said notification, if there was any, as the CBA was forged with a local CBA agent, the AMOSUP. Further, it bears emphasis that, in his pleadings, Complainant never refuted the existence of the CBA. In fact, he even indicated "Danish CBA" as the name of the worker's union/ federation in his complaint. Neither did he deny (Petitioners') averment that the CBA is still in full force and effect. This amounts to an admission by silence under Section 32, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.[36] (Citations omitted; underscoring supplied; emphasis and italics in the original) Significantly, not only the respondent but as well petitioners' do not dispute the effectivity of the CBA. In fact, one of the errors assigned in this petition for review is that the complaint is premature pending ruling under the Danish Industrial Injuries Act as mandated by the parties' CBA. This assertion is an implied recognition that the CBA remained effective at the time respondent lodged his complaint.[37] Having thus concluded that the CBA remained effective, its provisions on the award of disability should be followed, particularly as it is not contrary to law, the POEA-SEC, and public policy. In fact, it is more favorable to respondent and does not preclude the latter from recovery under the provisions of the POEA-SEC. On the award of disability, the CBA provides: ARTICLE 10- DEATH AND DISABILITY COMPENSATION xxxx https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/67062 5/10