4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On December 3, 2014, the CA did not find any valid reason to disturb the ruling of the NLRC, hence, it denied the petition.[26] Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was also denied by the CA in its Resolution[27] dated October 21, 2015. Hence, the instant recourse anchored on the following ground: THE COURT OF APPEALS RENDERED JUDGMENT NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 21, 2011 AND RESOLUTION DATED APRIL 7, 2011 OF THE NLRC AWARDING OVERTIME PAY, SICK AND VACATION LEAVE BENEFITS AND REFUND OF MEDICAL EXPENSES TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT PABLO P. ERISPE, JR.[28] The Court's Ruling As can be gleaned from the foregoing, Loadstar is no longer putting in issue the illegality of Erispe's dismissal. There being no issue regarding illegal dismissal in spite of the consistent finding below that Erispe was illegally dismissed, all pronouncements on the matter is now final. The Court is left to resolve the factual issue of whether or not the CA correctly sustained the NLRC's award of vacation leave benefits, overtime pay, and refund of medical expenses. It must be stressed that issues of facts may not be raised under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because this Court is not a trier of facts. It is not to re examine and assess the evidence on record, whether testimonial and documentary.[29] There are, however, recognized exceptions, such as the instant case, where the findings of the NLRC and the CA are inconsistent with that of the Labor Arbiter. The Court resolves to modify. As to the issue of vacation leave benefits, Loadstar averred that its company policy on the payment of accrued vacation leave is for the seafarer to disembark after the expiration of his contract, go on vacation for a short interval of complete rest with the benefit of full pay and then re-embark on another contract of employment. Only after satisfaction of the said company policy that vacation leaves may be commuted and granted to the seafarer. In this case, Erispe is deemed to have waived his right to vacation leave benefits when he failed to demand the same before the expiration of his original contract.[30] We agree. The purpose of a vacation leave is to afford a laborer the chance to get a much-needed rest to replenish his worn-out energy and acquire a new vitality to enable him to efficiently perform his duties, and not merely to give him additional salary and bounty. [31] This privilege must be demanded in its opportune time and if he allows the years to https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66175 4/10