5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly directly attributable to his accident on the ship.[18] In addition, the applicability of Articles 22 and 23 relating to medical attention and sick pay no longer applies since Dovee Yap had already been repatriated at the time of his death.[19] Hence, the present petition. Petitioner invokes the following grounds to support its petition: I. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED BLATANT ERROR, GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND ARBITRARINESS WHEN IT REVERSED THE DECISION AND FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. II. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED BLATANT ERROR, GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND ARBITRARINESS WHEN IT DISREGARDED THE CLEAR PROVISIONS OF DOVEE YAP’S COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) WHICH CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT HIS DEATH IS COMPENSABLE AS IT IS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INJURY THAT CAUSED HIS EMPLOYMENT TO BE TERMINATED. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS CONTRARY TO THE BENEVOLENT PROVISIONS OF DOVEE YAP’S CBA AND EVIDENCE ADDUCED ON RECORDS, CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE PROMULGATED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT. IV. PETITIONER WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJUSTICE IF THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL NOT BE RECTIFIED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT. In essence, the issue to be resolved is whether or not the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the death of her husband, Dovee Yap. We rule in the negative. The terms and conditions of a seafarer’s employment, including claims for death and disability benefits, is a matter governed, not only by medical findings, but by the contract he entered into with his employer and the law which is deemed integrated therein.[20] For as long as the stipulations in the contract are not contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy, they have the force of law between the parties. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57408 5/14