The following day or on August 17, 2003, respondent was repatriated to the Philippines following which he consulted the Sachly International Health Partners, Inc. (SHIP), a company-designated clinic, which diagnosed him to have lumbar strain with plantar fascitis and urinary tract infection.   Respondent thus went through daily physical rehabilitation therapy. After undergoing a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and other tests, he was finally diagnosed to have chronic bilateral L6 radiculopathies probably secondary to a lumbar canal and motility-like dyspepsia. He was later deemed fit to resume sea duties by specialists of the SHIP.[1]   Respondent sought a second opinion from an orthopedic expert who diagnosed him to have lumbar spondylopathy, lumbar disk protrusion, L5-S1 and declared him unfit for further sea duties.[2] The doctor recommended a partial permanent disability with Grade 8 impediment based on the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Contract.[3]   Respondent thereupon sought to claim illness allowance and disability benefits from petitioners. His claim was denied in view of the declaration by the company-designated physicians that he was fit to work, drawing respondent to file a complaint[4] against petitioners, docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. (M) 0405-01242-00, for disability benefits, illness allowance, damages and attorneys fees, invoking Sections 1 and 3 of Article XXI of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the All Japan Seamens Union/Associated Marine Officers and Seamens Union of the Philippines and Global Marine Co., Ltd. as well as Sections 20 (B) (3) and 20 (B) (6) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract.[5]   By Decision[6] of June 28, 2005, the Labor Arbiter, finding that respondent was not yet fit to perform his usual task as fitter and noting that he had been declared unfit for further sea duty, awarded him 100% compensation as disability benefit in the amount of $88,000 inclusive of attorneys fees. It denied, however, his prayer for illness allowance and damages, such allowance having already been paid and the claim for damages not having been justified.[7]   Petitioners alleged to have received the Labor Arbiters decision on July 13, 2005 and thus had until July 23, 2005 to file their memorandum on