4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Inocencio got ill with what appeared to be tonsillitis while on board MV Invicta, for which he was treated at a foreign port where the ship docked. His malady still continued despite the treatment as he was, in fact, repatriated before the end of his l 0-month contract on medical grounds. With the foregoing facts and the application of the above-quoted pertinent POEA-SEC provisos, it is abundantly clear that Inocencio is entitled to receive sickness allowance from his repatriation for medical treatment, which is equivalent to his basic wage for a period not exceeding 120 days or four months. The fact that Inocencio's sickness was later medically declared as not work-related does not prejudice his right to receive sickness allowance, considering that he got ill while on board the ship and was repatriated for medical treatment before the end of his 10month employment contract. Moreover, at the time of his repatriation. his illness was not yet medically declared as not work-related by Dr. Cruz thus, the presumption under the aforequoted Sec. 20(B)( 4) of the POEA-SEC applies. He is, therefore, entitled to sickness allowance pending assessment and declaration by the company-designated physician on the work-relatedness of his ailment. When the assessment of the company physician is that the ailment is not work related but such assessment is duly contested by the second opinion from a physician of the seafarer's choice, then pending the final determination by a third opinion pursuant to the mechanism provided under the third paragraph of Sec. 20(B)(3), the seafarer is still entitled to sickness allowance but not to exceed 120 days. Considering that Inocencio's sickness in question manifested itself and that he was repatriated during the period of his employment, he is entitled to sickness allowance, his sickness being then disputably presumed to be work-related pursuant to Sec. 20(B) above. Later he had tonsillectomy on May l 0, 2006. Though Inocencio was later diagnosed with cancer of the tonsils or tonsillar carcinoma and the company-designated doctor certified that it is not work-related, yet that fact should not prejudice the grant of sickness allowance which the law mandates the employers to give seafarers upon their repatriation for medical reasons to cushion their needs. Here, Inocencio was unable to work for a period of more than 120 days. The NLRC is, therefore, correct in awarding Inocencio his 120-day sickness allowance as required by the POEA-SEC from the time he was repatriated on February 19, 2006. The POEA formulated the standard employment contract tor seafarers pursuant to its mandate under Executive Order No. 247, Series of 1995, to secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure compliance therewith" and to "promote and protect the well-being of Filipino workers overseas.''[18] As in Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad, [19] an award of sickness allowance to Inocencio would be germane to the purpose of the benefit, which is to help the seafarer in making ends meet at the time when he is unable to work. The law looks tenderly on laborers. Where the evidence may be reasonably interpreted in two divergent ways, one prejudicial and the other favorable to them, the balance must be tilted in their favor consistent with the principle of social justice.[20] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55782 6/10