4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly xxxx EARS 1. For the complete loss of the sense of hearing on both ears…….…. Gr. 3 2. Loss of two (2) external ears………………………….....….........……......…… Gr. 8 3. Complete loss of the sense of hearing in one ear……………........…… Gr. 11 4. Loss of one external ear…………………………………............…......…….. Gr. 12 5. Loss of one half (1/2) of an external ear…………………................………. Gr. 14 Undoubtedly also applicable to the POEA-SEC, it is a cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts that if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control. [40] Considering that Calawigan was only diagnosed to be suffering from “moderate bilateral sensorineural hearing loss,” LISI correctly argues that the CA erred in giving credence to Dr. Mendiola’s assessment of a Grade 3 disability rating which corresponds to complete loss of hearing on both ears. Absent a finding that the “ossicular disarticulation” detected on Calawigan’s right ear amounts to a complete loss of the sense of hearing in one ear, it would also appear that said seafarer is not even entitled to compensation for a Grade 11 disability rating. Granted that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims therefor,[41] compensation and disability benefits under the POEA-SEC cannot be awarded to ailment or injuries not falling within its purview. His entitlement to sickness allowance and disability compensation thus discounted, attorney’s fees are not likewise due to Calawigan who filed his complaint on 4 July 2005 or even prior to Dr. Mendiola’s assessment of his disability. Having requested disembarkation/resigned from employment, Calawigan also executed a 29 June 2005 Release and Quitclaim, acknowledging his receipt from LISI of the sum of P39,441.32 by way of salaries and benefits.[42] Although releases and quitclaims executed by employees are commonly frowned upon as being contrary to public policy, the transaction evidenced thereby is recognized as a valid and binding undertaking where the consideration therefor is credible and reasonable and the person making the waiver has done so voluntarily, with a full understanding thereof.[43] No defect in respondent’s waivers was proven in the instant case. Thus, while we sympathize with Calawigan’s plight, we are, constrained to disallow the sickness allowance, disability benefits and attorney’s fees awarded by the CA. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED and the CA’s assailed 6 February 2009 Decision and 30 March 2009 Resolution are, accordingly, REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, another is entered REINSTATING the NLRC’s 30 April 2008 Decision. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Acting C.J.,* Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55413 8/11