5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly claims, Dr. Vicaldo’s findings have not been given due merit due to their unsubstantiated nature.[86] It, therefore, behooves the National Labor Relations Commission, perhaps, to cause an investigation on why, in spite of the unsupported nature of Dr. Vicaldo’s submissions, Labor Arbiters still give him credence. This unnecessarily clogs their administrative dockets, and the dockets of the Court of Appeals and this court. Judicial efficiency requires that Labor Arbiters and the National Labor Relations Commission keep guard against these types of doctors and their medical findings. Since petitioner’s illness is not work-related, this court need not labor on petitioner’s argument that his illness must be deemed total and permanent since 240 days had lapsed without any assessment by the company-designated physician on his fitness to work.[87] We observe that most seafarer complaints for compensation pursue the cause of action petitioner took in this case — breach of contractual obligations by its employer by invoking provisions of the POEA contract. This course follows a procedure that considers a balance of interests in the amount of compensation for the occupational hazards a seafarer suffers, and the process to recover such compensation.[88] Seafarers who suffer from occupational hazards are not necessarily constrained to contractual breach as cause of action in claiming compensation. Our laws allow seafarers, in a proper case, to seek damages based on tortious violations by their employers by invoking Civil Code provisions, and even special laws such as environmental regulations requiring employers to ensure the reduction of risks to occupational hazards.[89] Lastly, petitioner failed to substantiate his claim for attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees are awarded by way of exception when a defendant acted in evident and gross bad faith. [90] Quite the opposite, “respondents merely relied on the company-designated physician’s finding that petitioner’s illness was not work-related [and] [d]espite of [sic] such finding, private respondents still extended to petitioner the required medical assistance and therapy.”[91] Respondents also submit that they already paid petitioner illness allowance.[92] Respondents’ comment attached copies of approved illness allowance payments for petitioner in the amounts of US$555.87 for January and February 2007, US$589.29 for February and March 2007, and US$854.84 for April and May 2007.[93] Petitioner no longer mentioned illness allowance in his memorandum. This court’s resolution[94] requiring the filing of memoranda explained that “issues raised in the pleadings but not included in the memorandum shall be deemed waived or abandoned.”[95] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58809 11/17