P

A
G
E


1


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


Republic of the Philippines
Department of Labor and Employment
NATI ONAL LABOR RELATI ONS COMMI SSI ON
Quezon City


NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
ARBITRATION BRANCH


CANDELARIO T. AGUHAR, OFW-SEA BASED
Complainant,
NLRC Case No. ( M ) NCR-1 1 -1 7 4 1 7 -1 1
Hon. Labor Arbi t er Enri que L. Fl ores, Jr.
-versus-

SEALANES MARINE SERVICE
INC., WAGENBORG SHIPPING
BV, and CHRISTOPHER DINO
C. DUMATOL,
Respondents,
x----------------------------------------------------------------------x


COMPLAI NANTS POSI TI ON PAPER


COMPLAINANT CANDELARIO T. AGUHAR, by undersigned
counsel, respectfully submits this Position Paper, constitutive
of his causes of action against the respondents, to wit

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an action asking for payment by respondents of
the permanent total disability benefits, damages and
attorneys fees in favor of herein complainant. These claims
are based on the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)

P
A
G
E


2


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


between complainants Union (AMOSUP) and respondent
companies (WAGENBORG SHIPPING B.V. rep. by SEALANES
MARINE SERVICES, INC.); and other pertinent labor laws and
jurisprudence.

THE PARTIES

Complainant Candelario T. Aguhar (hereinafter referred
to as complainant Aguhar) is of legal age, Filipino, married
and a resident of Balico Drive, Poblacion, Talibon, Bohol
6325. He can be served with notices, orders, resolutions and
other processes of this Honorable Labor Arbitration Branch at
the address of his undersigned counsel.

Respondent SEALANES MARINE SERVICES, INC.
(hereinafter referred to as respondent Sealanes) is a
Philippine corporation operating as manning agency engaged
in the recruitment and placement of seafarers for deployment
abroad to their foreign principals. It may be served with
summons, orders, resolutions and other processes of this
Honorable Office at 8
th
Floor Pryce Center Bldg., 1179 Chino
Roces St., corner Bagtikan St., Makati City NCR 1200.


P
A
G
E


3


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


Respondent WAGENBORG SHIPPING B.V., (hereinafter
referred to as respondent Wagenborg) is one of the foreign
principals of respondent Sealanes, where complainant Aguhar
was deployed. It is based in the Netherlands, but for
purposes of being sued and notified in the Philippines, service
of notices, orders and resolutions of this Honorable Office can
be done at the office of respondent Sealanes, its resident
agent in the Philippines.

Respondent CAPT. LIBERATO A. DUMATOL (hereinafter
referred to as respondent Dumatol) is the
President/CEO/Gen.Manager/POEA Registered Contact
Person of respondent Sealanes. He is of legal age, Filipino
and with office address at 8
th
Floor Pryce Center Bldg., 1179
Chino Roces St., corner Bagtikan St., Makati City NCR 1200,
where he may be served with notices, orders and resolutions
of this Honorable Labor Arbitration Office.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. On 19 May 2011, the parties entered into a Contract of
Employment for complainant Aguhar to serve as an
ABLE BODY on board the vessel VOORMEBORG under
the following terms

P
A
G
E


4


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


Duration of Contract : Seven [7] months
Position : Able Body
Basic Monthly Salary : EUR 447.00/mo.
Hours of Work : 44 hrs/wk or 191 hrs/mo.
Overtime Rate : EUR 224.00/mo.
: EUR 3.29/hr excess of 86 hrs.
Vacation Leave Pay : EUR 119.00/mo.
Point of Hire : Manila, Philippines

Copy of the Contract of Employment is hereto attached
as Annex A.

2. Prior to the signing of the above-mentioned contract,
respondent Sealanes sent complainant Aguhar to its
accredited medical clinic for pre-employment medical
examination. Complainant Aguhar was found fit for duty
prior to his employment. Hence, he was hired by
respondents. Copy of pre-employment medical result is
hereto attached as Annex B.

3. On 07 July 2011, upon instruction of respondent
Sealanes, complainant Aguhar left the country and
eventually boarded the vessel Voormeborg, pursuant to
his contract of employment with respondents.

4. Complainant Aguhar was working on-duty on the vessel
19 September 2011 when an accident happened. He fell
down from more than two (2) meters high going down a

P
A
G
E


5


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


ladder from hatchcover to main deck. As he fell down,
the left side of his chest crashed to a metal box;
instantaneously causing severe painful injury to his
lower lateral chest area. Complainant Aguhar sustained
multiple rib fractures (6
th
, 7
th
, and 8
th
ribs). The left
collar-bone was likewise badly hurt. It was
excruciatingly painful. Complainant Aguhar cannot find
sleep due to the pain. The pain was compounded by the
harsh weather and the rough sea conditions. Copy of the
Accident Report consisting of three (3) pages from Capt.
Makarevych, Master of Voormeborg, is hereto attached
as Annex C.

5. Per accident report, the vessel was at the Port of St.
Petersburg (Russia) on the day of the accident. The
officer in charge at the time of the accident was Chief
Officer Pavio Iakoviliev. At the moment of the accident,
crewmembers were under instruction to make ready the
ship for sailing. Complainant Aguhar was wearing safety
shoes, cover-all jacket and helmet when the accident
befell him. Hence, he had all the safety precautions in
place. The wet weather played a role in the culmination
of the accident. Complainant Aguhar was exposed to the

P
A
G
E


6


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


risk of falling due to the wet and slippery conditions on
the vessel at the time.

6. Complainant Aguhar was repatriated to the Philippines
for medical reasons on 23 September 2011. Upon his
arrival in the country, he was immediately admitted at
the Manila Doctors Hospital in U.N. Avenue, Manila where
he was seen by the company designated physicians.
Initial x-ray results on 24 September 2011 confirmed the
multiple fractures with depressed components at the
postero-lateral aspect of the left 6
th
, 7
th
, and 8
th
ribs.
Copy of the x-ray results from the Manila Doctors
Hospital dated 24 September 2011 is hereto attached as
Annex D for reference.

7. On 29 September 2011, complainant Aguhar was
discharged from the Manila Doctors Hospital inspite of
the continuing episodes of pain which he repeatedly felt
on the left side of his chest and ribcage. Copy of the
Medical Abstract / Discharge Summary from Manila
Doctors Hospital is hereto attached as Annex E. This
document further confirms the diagnosis of Multiple Rib
Fractures, 6
th
to 8
th
ribs.


P
A
G
E


7


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


8. On 09 December 2011, with the pain in complainant
Aguhars chest continuing and there being no further
medical assistance from respondents, complainant
Aguhar consulted Dr. Roehl C. Salvador for further
medical attention. The subsistence of the multiple
fractures on the 6
th
, 7
th
, and 8
th
ribs of complainant
Aguhar was further confirmed. He then intended to use
these medical examination for the purpose of claiming
social security benefits from the Social Security
Commission. Copy of Dr. Salvadors Medical Certificate;
Radiographic Report from Hi-Precision Diagnostics; and
SSS Medical Certificate, are hereto attached as Annexes
F, F-1 and F-2.

9. By January 2012, after more than 120 days from the date
of his medical repatriation, complainant Aguhar decided
to ask respondent Sealanes for payment of his Total
Permanent Disability benefits as his injuries continue to
bring pain. The pain was increasingly manifested at the
time due to the cold weather. It was impossible for him
to sign-up for any contract to work on any vessel as x-
ray results would indicate his multiple fractures on the
6
th
, 7
th
and 8
th
ribs of his ribcage. His career as a seafarer
was obviously ended by the accident in Voormeburg.

P
A
G
E


8


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T



10. By February 2012, inspite of the fact that complainant
Aguhars injuries persist, respondents thru respondent
Sealanes refused and failed to acknowledge his Total
Permanent Disability. Respondents therefore refused and
failed to pay the Total Permanent Disability benefits of
complainant Aguhar under the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) which provides for payment of Eighty
Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$80,000.00) in cases of total
and permanent disability. Copy of the C.B.A. is hereto
attached as Annex G for reference.

11. Before making any further action sometime on February
2012, Complainant Aguhar consulted a specialist in the
person of Orthopaedic Surgeon Dr. Misael Jonathan A.
Ticman, MD, FPOA, for a third and final examination of
his medical condition. The ultimate and subsisting
finding was that Multiple Rib Fractures on the 6
th
, 7
th

and 8
th
ribs of complainant Aguhar. Copy of the
Disability Report issued by Dr. Ticman, consisting of two
(2) pages, is hereto attached as Annex H.


P
A
G
E


9


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


12. The expert opinion of Dr. Ticman is that of total and
permanent disability in the case of complainant Aguhar.
On page 2 of his Disability Report, he wrote

Based on the history and physical examination
on the patient (Aguhar) and inspite of the fact that
four months has past and the symptoms still persist
and that he experiences pain on deep inspiration,
the prognosis is not good. I am therefore
recommending Permanent Disability and that he is
unfit to work as a seaman in any capacity.


13. By reason of respondents refusal and failure to pay the
total permanent disability benefits of complainant
Aguhar, he filed the instant case against respondents.
Attempts to arrive at a settlement failed, hence, this
Position Paper is now filed.

ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

[a]. Whether or not complainant Aguhar is entitled to
payment of Permanent Total Disability Benefits; and

[b]. Whether or not complainant Aguhar is entitled to
payment of moral and exemplary damages, and
attorneys fees.


P
A
G
E


1
0


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T



ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Complainant Aguhar thru undersigned counsel
respectfully submits in the affirmative for all the issues.

Complainant Aguhar submits that he is entitled to be
paid, among others, his total permanent disability benefits of
Eighty Thousand US Dollars [US$80,000.00] under the
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

The latest word of the Supreme Court on the matter is
the MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, ET. AL., v.
OBERTO S. LOBUSTA, (25 January 2012, G.R. No. 177578). In
that case, the Supreme Court re-affirmed its previous rulings
concerning the determination of total and permanent
disability, to wit
Petitioners are mistaken that it is only the POEA
Standard Employment Contract that must be
considered in determining Lobusta's disability.
In Palisoc v. Easways Marine, I nc.,
25
we said that
whether the Labor Codes provision on permanent
total disability applies to seafarers is already a
settled matter. In Palisoc, we cited the earlier case
of Remigio v. National Labor Relations
Commission
26
where we said (1) that the standard
employment contract for seafarers was formulated
by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under
Executive Order No. 247
27
to secure the best terms

P
A
G
E


1
1


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


and conditions of employment of Filipino contract
workers and ensure compliance therewith, and to
promote and protect the well-being of Filipino
workers overseas; (2) that Section 29 of the 1996
POEA Standard Employment Contract itself provides
that all rights and obligations of the parties to the
contract, including the annexes thereof, shall be
governed by the laws of the Republic of the
Philippines, international conventions, treaties and
covenants where the Philippines is a signatory; and
(3) that even without this provision, a contract of
labor is so impressed with public interest that
the Civil Code expressly subjects it to the special
laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes
and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working
conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.
28

In affirming the Labor Code concept of permanent
total disability, Remigio further stated:

Thus, the Court has applied the Labor Code
concept of permanent total disability to the case of
seafarers. In Philippine Transmarine Carriers v.
NLRC, seaman Carlos Nietes was found to be
suffering from congestive heart failure and
cardiomyopathy and was declared as unfit to work
by the company-accredited physician. The Court
affirmed the award of disability benefits to the
seaman, citing ECC v. Sanico, GSI S v. CA,
andBej erano v. ECC 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. It
likewise cited Bej erano v. ECC, that in a disability
compensation, it is not the injury which is
compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to
work resulting in the impairment of ones earning
capacity.


P
A
G
E


1
2


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


The same principles were cited in the more
recent case of Crystal Shipping, I nc. v. Natividad.
In addition, the Court cited GSI S v.
Cadiz andI j ares v. CA that permanent disability is
the inability of a worker to perform his job for
more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not
he loses the use of any part of his body.
x x x x
These facts clearly prove that petitioner was
unfit to work as drummer for at least 11-13
months from the onset of his ailment on March
16, 1998 to 8-10 months after June 25, 1998. This,
by itself, already constitutes permanent total
disability. x x x
29

In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, I nc.,
30
we
also said that the standard terms of the POEA Standard
Employment Contract agreed upon are intended to be
read and understood in accordance with Philippine laws,
particularly, Articles 191 to 193 of the Labor Code, as
amended, and the applicable implementing rules and
regulations in case of any dispute, claim or grievance.
Thus, the CA was correct in applying the Labor
Code provisions in Lobustas claim for disability benefits.
The Labor Arbiter erred in failing to apply them.
Article 192(c)(1) under Title II, Book IV of the Labor
Code, as amended, reads:

ART. 192. Permanent total disability. x x x
x x x x
(c) The following disabilities shall be deemed
total and permanent:
(1) Temporary total disability lasting
continuously for more than one hundred twenty
(120) days, except as otherwise provided in the
Rules;
x x x x

P
A
G
E


1
3


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


Section 2(b), Rule VII of the Implementing Rules of
Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code, as amended, or
the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation
Commission (ECC Rules), reads:

Sec. 2. Disability. x x x
(b) A disability is total and permanent if as a
result of the injury or sickness the employee is
unable to perform any gainful occupation for a
continuous period exceeding 120 days, except as
otherwise provided for in Rule X of these Rules.


Complainant Aguhars claim is in accord with the above-
cited 2012 Lobusta case, and of course with the re-affirmed
doctrinal rulings in Crystal Shipping, Inc. Et Al., v. Deo P.
Natividad, [G.R. No. 154798, 20 October 2005] and Bernardo
Remigio v. NLRC, Et Al., [G.R. No. 159887, 12 April 2006], as
well as subsequent jurisprudence maintaining the said
rulings, notwithstanding the revisions made in the POEA
Standard Contract.

It is very clear that the injury was sustained in the
course of employment and undeniably in the performance of
duty. Section 20 [B] of the POEA Standard Contract provides


B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR
INJURY OR ILLNESS


P
A
G
E


1
4


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


The liabilities of the employer when the
seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness
during the term of his contract are as follows:

1. The employer shall continue to pay the
seafarer his wages during the time he is on
board the vessel;

2. If the injury or illness requires medical
and/or dental treatment in a foreign port, the
employer shall be liable for the full cost of
such medical, serious dental, surgical and
hospital treatment as well as board and
lodging until the seafarer is declared fit to
work or to be repatriated.

However, if after repatriation, the seafarer
still requires medical attention arising from
said injury or illness, he shall be so provided
at cost to the employer until such time he is
declared fit or the degree of his disability has
been established by the company-designated
physician.

3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical
treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness
allowance equivalent to his basic wage until
he is declared fit to work or the degree of
permanent disability has been assessed by
the company designated physician xxx xxx

4. Those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of
this Contract are disputably presumed as
work-related.

5. Once signed off from the vessel for medical
treatment, the employer shall bear the full
cost of repatriation in the event the seafarer
is declared (1) fit for repatriation; or (2) fit to
work but the employer is unable to find
employment for the seafarer on board his
former vessel or another vessel of the
employer despite earnest efforts.

In case of permanent total or partial disability
of the seafarer caused by either injury or
illness the seafarer shall be compensated in
accordance with the schedule of benefits

P
A
G
E


1
5


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


enumerated in Section 32 of his Contract.
Computation of his benefits arising from an
illness or disease shall be governed by the
rates and the rules of compensation
applicable at the time the illness or disease
was contracted.

In this case, the injury was work-related since the same
was sustained in the course of duty. Said injury was not pre-
existing since complainant underwent the mandatory pre-
employment medical examination before he was employed by
respondent, and was found to be fit and given a clean bill of
health prior to his employment.

In Crystal Shipping, Inc. Et Al., v. Deo P. Natividad, [G.R.
No. 154798, 20 October 2005], the Supreme Court ruled that:

Permanent disability is the inability of a
worker to perform his job for more than 120
days, regardless of whether or not he loses
the use of any part of his body. As gleaned
from the records, respondent was unable to
work from August 18, 1998 to February 22,
1999, at the least, or more than 120 days, due
to his medical treatment. This clearly shows
that his disability was permanent.

Total disability, on the other hand, means
the disablement of an employee to earn
wages in the same kind of 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 attainments could
do. It does not mean absolute helplessness.
In disability compensation, it is not the injury
which is compensated, but rather it is the

P
A
G
E


1
6


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


incapacity to work resulting in the impairment
of ones earning capacity.

The ruling in the Crystal Shipping Case is a refinement of
earlier decisions, viz

In the case of the Philippine Transmarine
Carriers, Inc. vs. NLRC. 358 SCRA 47, the
Supreme Court held 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 person
of his mentality and attainment could do. It
does not mean absolute helplessness (ECC vs.
Edmund Sanico, 321 SCRA 268: GSIS vs. CA
285 SCRA 430; GSIS vs. CA 260 SCRA 133:
Bejerano vs. ECC, 205 SCRA 598).

In disability compensation, it is not the injury
which is compensated, but rather it is the
incapacity to work resulting in the impairment
of ones earning capacity (Bejerano vs. ECC
205 SCRA 598: Ulibas vs. Republic, 83 SCRA
819; Roma vs. WCC, 80 SCRA 170).

One should always remember that the POEA
Standard Employment Contract for Seamen is
designed primarily for the protection and
benefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of
their employment on board ocean-going
vessels. Its provisions must, therefore, be
construed and applied fairly, reasonably and
liberally in their favor. Only then can its
beneficent provisions be fully carried into
effect (Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs.
NLRC 318 SCRA 632).



P
A
G
E


1
7


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


The ruling in the Crystal Shipping case was maintained,
reinforced and more clearly expounded in the case of
Bernardo Remigio v. NLRC, Et Al., [G.R. No. 159887, 12 April
2006] when this Honorable Court, acting through then
Associate Justice [later on Chief Justice] Renato Puno,
included the application of the concept of Permanent Total
Disability under the Labor Code in favor of the sick or injured
seafarer in addition to the provisions of the POEA Standard
Employment Contract for seafarers. The ruling in the said
case reads as follows:

Second. Is the Labor Code's concept of
permanent total disability applicable to the
case at bar? Petitioner claims to have
suffered from permanent total disability as
defined under Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor
Code, viz:

Art. 192 (c) The following disabilities shall
be deemed total and permanent:
(1) Temporary total disability lasting
continuously for more than one hundred
twenty days, except as otherwise provided in
the Rules; x x x

Petitioner likewise cites Vicente v.
ECC1[35] and Abaya, Jr. v. ECC,2[36] both of
which were decided applying the Labor Code
provisions on disability benefits. Private
respondents, on the other hand, contend that
petitioner erred in applying the definition of
permanent total disability under the Labor
Code and cases decided under the ECC as the
instant case involves a contractual claim
under the 1996 POEA SEC.

Again, we rule for petitioner.

P
A
G
E


1
8


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T



The standard employment contract for
seafarers was formulated by the POEA
pursuant to its mandate under E.O. No. 247
to secure the best terms and conditions of
employment of Filipino contract workers and
ensure compliance therewith and to
promote and protect the well-being of
Filipino workers overseas.3[37] Section 29
of the 1996 POEA SEC itself provides that
[a]all rights and obligations of the parties to
[the] Contract, including the annexes thereof,
shall be governed by the laws of the Republic
of the Philippines, international conventions,
treaties and covenants where the Philippines
is a signatory. Even without this provision, a
contract of labor is so impressed with public
interest that the New Civil Code expressly
subjects it to the special laws on labor
unions, collective bargaining, strikes and
lockouts, closed shop, wages, working
conditions, hours of labor and similar
subjects."4[38]

Thus, the Court has applied the Labor Code
concept of permanent total disability to the
case of seafarers. In Philippine Transmarine
Carriers v. NLRC,5[39] seaman Carlos Nietes
was found to be suffering from congestive
heart failure and cardiomyopathy and was
declared as unfit to work by the company-
accredited physician. The Court affirmed the
award of disability benefits to the seaman,
citing ECC v. Sanico,6[40] GSIS v. CA,7[41]
and Bejerano v. ECC8[42] 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. It likewise cited
Bejerano v. ECC,9[43] that in disability
compensation, it is not the injury which is
compensated, but rather it is the incapacity

P
A
G
E


1
9


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


to work resulting in the impairment of one's
earning capacity.


Complainant Aguhar is further entitled to moral and
exemplary damages, and attorneys fees.

On account of respondents wanton refusal to pay
complainant what is clearly due to him, which act manifests
evident bad faith on their part, respondents must likewise be
ordered to pay moral damages in favor of complainant
Aguhar who, in addition to his sickness, also suffered serious
anxiety, sleepless nights, wounded feelings and loss of
appetite. Such moral damages must amount to at Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos [Php500,000.00] Philippine
currency.

In order to serve as a lesson to the general public and
prevent further commission of the same or similar acts
injurious to complainant, respondents must likewise be
ordered to pay exemplary damages of at least Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos [Php500,000.00] Philippine currency.

Since it was respondents act of refusing to pay
complainants disability benefits which forced the latter to
litigate, respondents must likewise be ordered to pay

P
A
G
E


2
0


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


attorneys fees equivalent to ten percent [10%] of the total
award in favor of complainant Aguhar.

R E L I E F

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully
asked of this Honorable Labor Arbitration Office that the
following be awarded in favor of complainant by ordering
respondents to pay -

1. TP Disability Benefits = US$ 80,000.00 Dollars
2. Moral damages = PhP 500,000.00 Pesos
3. Exemplary damages = PhP 500,000.00 Pesos
4. Attorneys Fees equivalent to 10% of total award
= US$ 8,000.00 Dollars; and
= PhP 100,000 Pesos

Other reliefs just and equitable are respectfully sought.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Santa Cruz, Laguna for Quezon City, 25 April 2012.





P
A
G
E


2
1


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T




Atty. EMMANUEL E. SANDICHO
Counsel for the Complainant
117 P. Guevarra St., Santa Cruz, Laguna
IBP No. 848920, 01.06.2012, ManilaIV
PTR No. 8163771, 02.05.2012, Laguna
Roll No. 42246 admitted on 9 May 1997
MCLE Compliance No. III-0020564



Republic of the Philippines ]
Quezon City, Metro Manila ] s.s.

VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION

I, CANDELARIO T. AGUHAR, of legal age, Filipino, married
and resident of Balico Drive, Poblacion, Talibon, Bohol after
having been sworn in accordance with law, depose and state
that

I am the complainant in the above captioned case; I
have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing
Position Paper; I have read and understood the same; I
certify that the declarations therein are true and
correct of my own personal knowledge and on the
basis of authentic records.

I have not commenced any action or proceeding
involving the same issues before any other court,
agency or tribunal. To my personal knowledge, no such
action or proceeding is pending before any other court,
agency or tribunal. In the event I come to know of any
other pending action to that effect, I undertake to
inform this office within five [5] days thereafter.

IN WITNESS WHEREFORE, I hereto affixed my signature this
25
th
of April 2012 in Quezon City.



CANDELARIO T. AGUHAR
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 25 April
2012 in Quezon City by affiant with Seafarer Registration

P
A
G
E


2
2


O
F

2
2


-


P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

P
A
P
E
R

O
F

C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
A
N
T


Certificate (SRC) No. CB10697-97 issued at POEA-Ortigas on
17 October 2002/ 13 April 2011 and valid until 11 April 2016.


Doc. No. _____;
Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2012.




________________________________________________

Copy furnished --

DEL ROSARIO & DEL ROSARIO LAW
15
TH
Floor Pacific Star Building
Corner Makati and Gil Puyat Avenues
Makati City, Metro Manila


Received by:

Signature : _________________
Name : _________________
Position : _________________
Date : ________________