3/25/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Standard Employment Contract. Contrary to petitioners' assertions, the labor arbiter held that only P49,546.00 ($1,943.00) was paid by petitioners and that private respondent is still entitled to the balance of the sickness wages in the amount of $1,537.00. According to the labor arbiter, petitioners failed to prove that they had paid this amount to private respondent, notwithstanding the document entitled "Sickness Release & Quitclaim" introduced by petitioners in evidence, which was not given credence.[17] The NLRC and the Court of Appeals concurred with the labor arbiter on this issue. The appellate court held that the documentary evidence of petitioners was insufficient to support their contentions.[18] The Supreme Court has always accorded respect and finality to the findings of fact of the NLRC, particularly if they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter, when supported by substantial evidence. The reason for this is that a quasi-judicial agency like the NLRC has acquired a unique expertise because its jurisdiction is confined to specific matters.[19] Whether or not petitioners actually paid the balance of the sickness wages to private respondent is a factual question. In the absence of proof that the labor arbiter or the NLRC had gravely abused their discretion, the Court shall deem conclusive and cannot be compelled to overturn this particular factual finding.[20] Damages We affirm the appellate court's finding that petitioners are guilty of negligence in failing to provide immediate medical attention to private respondent. It has been sufficiently established that, while the M/V T.A. VOYAGER was docked at the port of New Zealand, private respondent was taken ill, causing him to lose his memory and rendering him incapable of performing his work as radio officer of the vessel. The crew immediately notified the master of the vessel of private respondent's worsening condition. However, instead of disembarking private respondent so that he may receive immediate medical attention at a hospital in New Zealand or at a nearby port, the master of the vessel proceeded with the voyage, in total disregard of the urgency of private respondent's condition. Private respondent was kept on board without any medical attention whatsoever for the entire duration of the trip from New Zealand to the Philippines, a voyage of ten days. To make matters worse, when the vessel finally arrived in Manila, petitioners failed to directly disembark private respondent for immediate hospitalization. Private respondent was made to suffer a wait of several more hours until a vacant slot was available at the pier for the vessel to dock. It was only upon the insistence of private respondent's relatives that petitioners were compelled to disembark private respondent and finally commit him to a hospital.[21] There is no doubt that the failure of petitioners to provide private respondent with the necessary medical care caused the rapid deterioration and inevitable worsening of the latter's condition, which eventually resulted in his sustaining a permanent disability. In light of the foregoing, petitioners are liable for moral damages for the physical suffering and mental anguish caused to private respondent.[22] There is no hard and fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral damages, since each case must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances.[23] In the present case, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/50003 13/16