4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly RESPONDENT’S VESSEL AND THEREFORE ENTITLED TO DISABILITY BENEFITS.[19] Petitioner argues that there is enough reason to disregard the assessment of Dr. Campana, the respondents’ company-designated physician, that he is already fit for work as of October 21, 2001. Petitioner maintains that despite the said findings, he still found it difficult to walk and move his upper right extremities. Petitioner, thus, sought further treatment from other doctors. The fact that he continued to undergo further examinations and treatments belie the declaration that he was fit for work. Petitioner claims that both the LA and the NLRC cannot be faulted for disregarding the findings of respondents’ company-designated physician and in upholding instead the assessment of his independent doctors. Moreover, petitioner contends that the records of the case would clearly reveal that the present complaint was filed on the basis of his injured right shoulder that he suffered while working on board respondents’ vessel and not solely on the basis of his Parkinson’s disease, which was diagnosed only at a later time. Finally, petitioner insists that he is entitled to the payment of attorney’s fees. On their part, respondents argue that the CA acted in accordance with the law when it set aside and annulled the decision of the NLRC and dismissed petitioner’s complaint for lack of merit. The petition is meritorious. In the case at bar, the CA relied on the provisions of Section 20 (B) of the 1996 POEASEC[20] and the ruling of this Court in German Marine Agencies, Inc. v NLRC,[21] in concluding that the disability of a seafarer can only be determined by a companydesignated physician and not the seafarer’s own doctors. Respecting the findings of the CA that it is the 1996 POEA-SEC which is applicable, nonetheless the case of Abante v. KJGS Fleet Management Manila[22] is instructive and worthy of note. In the said case, the CA similarly held that the contract of the parties therein was also governed by Memo Circular No. 55, series of 1996.[23] Thus, the CA ruled that it is the assessment of the company-designated physician which is deemed controlling in the determination of a seafarer’s entitlement to disability benefits and not the opinion of another doctor. Nevertheless, that conclusion of the CA was reversed by this Court. Instead, the Court upheld the findings of the independent physician as to the claimant’s disability. The Court pronounced: Respecting the appellate court's ruling that it is POEA Memo Circular No. 55, series of 1996 which is applicable and not Memo Circular No. 9, series of 2000, apropos is the ruling in Seagull Maritime Corporation v. Dee involving employment contract entered into in 1999, before the promulgation of POEA Memo Circular No. 9, series of 2000 or the use of the new POEA Standard elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55611 4/11