In relation thereto, note should be made that the complainant’s

employment is governed by its terms and that of the POEA-SEC. As

declared by the Supreme Court in the August 2014 case of Remedios O.
Yap v Rover Maritime Services Corporation, et.al:1

“The terms and conditions of a complainant’s employment,

including claims for death and disability benefits, is a matter
governed, not only by medical findings, but by the contract he
entered into with his employer and the law which is deemed
integrated therein. For as long as the stipulations in the
contract are not contrary to law, morals, public order, or
public policy, they have the force of law between the parties.

Paragraph 2 of the Contract of Employment between

petitioner’s husband and respondent states that the terms
and conditions of Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) Order No. 4, Series of 2000, as amended by Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Memorandum
Circular No. 9, Series of 2000, entitled the Standard Terms
and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino
Complainants On Board Ocean-Going Vessels (POEA Standard
Employment Contract), shall be strictly and faithfully
observed. Said issuances provide a set of minimum
requirements acceptable to the government for the
employment of Filipino complainants on board ocean-going
vessels.”2

27. In relation thereto, Section 1 (B) of the POEA-SEC mandates

the complainant:

“1. To faithfully comply with and observe the terms and

conditions of this contract, violation of which shall be
subject to disciplinary action pursuant to Section 33 of this
contract.”3

1G.R. No. 198342; 13 August 2014

2 Emphasis and underscoring supplied
3 Emphasis supplied
 28. Such faithful compliance is imperative not only for activities
on board but also for activities leading to the final fulfillment of the
duties required of him and the Respondents under the POEA-SEC.

29. Here, the complainant filed the instant case claiming for full
disability benefits under the POEA-SEC. However, before any discussion
anent how much disability compensation complainant is entitled to, if
any, the requirement of the governing contract-POEA-SEC- must first be
discussed to determine whether the complainant complied with the
same.

Motion for Reconsideration – NCMB

On 27 January 2020, the respondent received a copy of

the Honorable Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators’ Decision dated
28 November 2019 awarding the complainant full disability
benefits in accordance with the CBA, and 10% of the monetary
award by way of attorney’s fees, with the following disposition:

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE

FOREGOING, judgement is hereby rendered
ORDERING respondent to pay the complainant the
amount of USD136,410, or its peso equivalent at
the time of payment; and 10% of the monetary
award by way of attorney’s fees.

The claim for damages is denied.”

2. Under Article 262-A of the Labor Code, as supported

by the case of Albert Teng, et.al. v. Alfredo S. Pahagac,
et.al.,4 which states that “a motion for reconsideration is the
more appropriate remedy in line with the doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedies,” respondent has ten (10) days, or
until 06 February 2020, within which to file the said motion.
Hence, this Motion is filed within the reglementary period
allowed by the Rules.

4 G.R. No. 169704, 17 November 2010

 3. In the Decision sought to be reconsidered, the
Honorable Panel ruled that the complainant is entitled to his
claim for total and permanent disability benefits plus
attorney’s fees based on the ground that the company-
designated physician allegedly failed to issue a final and
definite assessment within 120/240 days.

4. In view of the foregoing, the Honorable Panel held that

the third doctor provision was allegedly not applicable in the
case.

CONCLUDING STATEMENT

100. All told, the respondent respectfully submits that this

Honorable Panel should not have awarded total and full
disability benefits to the complainant under the CBA. For
indeed, at best, the complainant is only entitled to disability
benefits corresponding to the Grade-13 final disability rating
given to him by the company-designated doctor.

101. Hence, to prevent a further miscarriage of justice, the

respondent respectfully implores this Honorable Panel to
rectify its Decision dated 28 November 2019 and to dismiss
the complainant’s baseless claim for total and permanent
disability benefits.

102. As a last note, the Supreme Court’s concluding

statements in the March 2019 case of Mawanay 5 regarding
the proper rendition of justice is worth citing:

“While it is true that the provisions of the POEA SEC

must be construed logically and liberally in favor of
Filipino seamen in pursuit of their employment on
board ocean-going vessels consistent with the State's
policy to afford full protection to labor, it does not

5 See citation number 7

 mean that the Court should automatically rule in
favor of the seafarer. The provisions of the POEA SEC
must be weighed in accordance with the prescribed
laws, procedure, and provisions of contract freely
agreed upon by the parties, and with utmost regard as
well of the rights of the employers.

In closing, it must be said that the Court

commiserates with the plight of our seafarers who had
to sacrifice and endure a lot in order to give their
families a better life. Nonetheless, the law and rules
are there for a reason. They give order and serve as an
equalizing force between the different sectors of
society. Thus, it must be respected and followed.
While it can be said that the POEA SEC was drafted
in order to promote the interest of Filipino
workers abroad, the same does not mean that its
interpretation and implementation would have to
always benefit labor. The goal of every court in
every litigation is to render justice. And in this
sense, it is not justice to favor labor on this score
alone. Neither does this excuses (sic) the workers from
compliance with their obligations under the contract.
The scales of justice tilts (sic) in favor of labor only
where the evidence presented by both is in an
equipoise, and with due consideration to attendant
circumstances. When it is clear that it is the
employee who failed to meet his freely and
lawfully contracted obligation, the Court must not
hesitate to rule against them for as long as the
same is in accordance with what is due in light of
established facts, pertinent law, and relevant
jurisprudence.”6

103. In this case, the concept of “liberal construction”

should not be abused in disregard of the uncontroverted facts
and those that were duly established by the evidence

6 Emphasis supplied, citations omitted

presented and on record. “Liberal construction” is not a
license to disobey the applicable provisions of law and the
POEA-SEC, as well as the relevant Supreme Court decisions.
Again, quoting Mawanay, “the goal of every court in every
litigation is to render justice.”

104. Indeed, there is only one conclusion that can, and

should be reached in this case: The instant complaint
should have been dismissed by the Honorable Panel for
utter lack of merit.

As a final note, the respondents implore this Honorable

Labor Arbiter that in deciding the case, to take note of the
concluding statement of the Supreme Court in the March
2019 case of Falcon Maritime vs. Pangasian7:

“The Constitutional mandate in providing full

protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to
oppress employers. This Court's assurance to this
policy does not stop us from upholding the employer
when it is in the right. Thus, when evidence
contradicts compensability, the claim cannot
prosper, otherwise it causes injustice to the
employer.”8

74. In this case, the respondents are in the right. Thus,

the respondents respectfully but fervently implore this
Honorable Labor Arbiter to uphold the respondents’ position
and to dismiss the present case, in order to prevent a
miscarriage of justice.

7G.R. No. 223295, March 13, 2019

8 Emphasis, underscoring and italics supplied