"A perusal of the foregoing certification and provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act of Malaysia, as correctly pointed out by the complainant, are [sic] susceptible of two different interpretations. "The Certification is indeed ambiguous inasmuch as it goes to the extent of computing the death benefits based on forty five months of the deceased monthly earnings and at the same time adds the phrase `RM14,400.00, whichever less'. The ambiguity becomes more apparent by virtue of the figure US$27,902.02 which appears below the phrase `which ever less'. If the intention of the Labor Office of Melaka was to award RM14,400.00 it should have not otherwise put the amount of US$27,902.02. "In ruling in favor of complainant, we but render obedience to the well-entrenched principle that in case of doubt, a labor case must be decided in favor of the workingman. (Aquino et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 8763, February 11, 1992). This is in consonance with the liberal and compassionate spirit which gave birth to labor laws as social justice measures and as manifestation of the State's avowed policy to give maximum aid and protection to labor (see Sarmiento vs. Employees Compensation Commission, 103 SCRA 329). "On the second and third issues, we also rule in favor of complainant. Although, there was deposited of [sic] RM14,400.00 with the Melaka Labor Office, the same is not valid. "We do not agree with respondents' contention that they had no option but to pay directly to the Melaka Labor Office. It is clear from the same certification that respondents were given the option to pay the compensation benefits to `PNB/PPB to the next of kin of the deceased.' Therefore, respondents should have paid directly to herein complainant, she being the next of kin of the deceased. Furthermore, under Philippine laws, payment to the next of kin of the deceased is valid. Finally, as again correctly pointed out by complainant, the amount deposited with the Melaka Labor Office is less than the amount to which complainant is entitled, so much so that the deposit of the same is not the complete payment needed to extinguish respondents' obligation." Petitioner charges the public respondent with grave abuse of discretion and submits the following issues for resolution: First. Whether or not the public respondent seriously erred and gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in affirming the decision of the Honorable Labor Arbiter finding that the benefits due the private respondent was US$27,902.02. Second. Whether or not the public respondent seriously erred and gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in holding that the Certification/Computation marked as Annex "F" above and Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act of Malaysia were susceptible to two different interpretations and thereafter applied the rule that in case of doubt, settle the doubt in favor of labor. Third. Whether or not the public respondent seriously erred and gravely abused its discretion in disregarding the express language of Annexes "I", "I-1", "I-2", "I-3", and "I-4".