4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly maximum benefits under Section C(4)[b] and [c] of the POEA SEC. The Court of Appeals held: We find Penales clearly entitled to the maximum amount given to totally and permanently disabled seafarers. It is undisputed that even now, Penales has fragile extremities that [affect] his upper body strength and he can no longer perform draining shipboard activities. Since disability benefits are based on the impairment of earning capacity, then Penales is entitled to the maximum amount granted to disabled seafarers. Consistently, the High Court has ruled that “disability should not be understood more on its medical significance but on the loss of earning capacity. Permanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of similar nature that [he] was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of [his] mentality and attainment could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness.” [ECC v. Edmund Sanico, 321 SCRA 268] In disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one’s earning capacity.[16] On December 4, 2003, the Court of Appeals granted Penales’s petition and held that the NLRC abused its discretion when it remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter for the determination of Penales’s grade of disability when his total and permanent disability had been clearly established. The fallo of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. Private Respondents are hereby ordered to pay Penales, jointly and severally, the amount of US$50,000.00 (maximum rate) x 120% or US$60,000.00 (to be paid in the Philippine currency equivalent to the exchange rate prevailing at the time of payment) representing the maximum disability benefits as per Section 30-A, Appendix 1-A of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. Private respondents are likewise ordered to pay ten percent (10%) of the awarded amount of US$60,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees.[17] The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration[18] of the above Decision but this was denied by the Court of Appeals in its February 23, 2004 Resolution for lack of merit. Undaunted, petitioners are now before this Court presenting the following issue and grounds for its petition: Statement Of The Issue Whether Or Not The Court Of Appeals Decided The Case A Quo In A Way Not elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55144 4/12