4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly SO ORDERED.[7] Dissatisfied with the ruling of the LA, Pacbasin appealed the decision to the NLRC. On April 25, 2008, the NLRC partially granted its prayer. It ruled that Santiago was only entitled to partial permanent disability equivalent to grade 12 or the amount of $5,225.00 plus 10% as attorney’s fees. Thus, the claim for total permanent disability benefit and sickness allowance was disallowed. The decretal portion reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent’s appeal is partially GRANTED. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter is AFFIRMED subject to MODIFICATIONS in that complainant is entitled only to partial permanent disability equivalent to grade 12 or the amount of US$5,225.00 plus 10% thereof as attorney’s fees. The award of total permanent disability benefit (US$60,000.00) and sickness allowance (of US$648.00) are vacated and set aside for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[8] A motion for reconsideration was filed by Santiago but the same was denied. Aggrieved, Santiago elevated the case to the CA. He insisted that he was entitled to the maximum disability benefit of $60,000.00 because he was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days. His basis for said position was the ruling in the case of Crystal Shipping v. Natividad.[9] Pacbasin countered that the case of Crystal Shipping v. Natividad was already abandoned and superseded by the case of Jesus Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services.[10] In said case, the Court ruled that a temporary total disability only becomes permanent when so declared by the company-designated physician within the period he is allowed to do so, or upon the expiration of the maximum 240-day medical treatment period without the declaration of either fitness to work or the existence of a permanent disability.[11] The CA, in its February 11, 2010 Decision, dismissed Santiago’s appeal and affirmed the NLRC decision and resolution. The dispositive portion of said decision is quoted below as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the decision dated April 25, 2008 and resolution dated November 28, 2008 both issued by public respondent commission are perforce affirmed in toto. SO ORDERED.[12] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/54764 3/10