6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In Fil-Star Maritime Corporation v. Rosete,[27] the Court emphasized that in determining whether a disability was total or partial, what was crucial was whether the employee who suffered from disability could still perform his work notwithstanding the disability he met. In brief, permanent partial disability presupposes a seafarer's fitness to resume sea duties before the end of the 120/240-day medical treatment period despite the injuries sustained. The premise is that such partial injuries did not disable a seafarer to earn wages in the same kind of work or similar nature for which he was trained. For the courts and labor tribunals, determining whether a seafarer's fitness to work despite suffering an alleged partial injury generally requires resort to the assessment and certification issued within the 120/240-day period by the company-designated physician. Through such certification, a seafarer's fitness to resume work or the degree of disability can be known, unless challenged by the seafarer through a second opinion secured by virtue of his right under the POEA-SEC. Such certification, as held by this Court in numerous cases, must be a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability.[28] As stated in Oriental Shipmanagement Co., Inc. v. Bastol,[29] the company-designated doctor must declare the seaman fit to work or assess the degree of his permanent disability. Without which, the characterization of a seafarer's condition as permanent and total will ensue because the ability to return to one's accustomed work before the applicable periods elapse cannot be shown. In this case, petitioners seek the Court's attention to the "final" assessment, dated April 19, 2010, issued by the attending physician, which was earlier quoted. To the petitioners, this assessment forecloses any claim that Zafra's injury is total or one that incapacitates the employee to continue performing his work. They treat it as the certification required under Section 20 (B)(3) of the POEA-SEC[30] as it contained his degree of disability and fitness to resume sea duties. The statement, however, is clearly devoid of any definitive declaration as to the capacity of Zafra to return to work or at least a categorical and final degree of disability. As pointed out by the CA, all the medical certificates found in the record merely recited his medical history and, worse, it made no mention as to whether the seafarer was even capable of resuming work. In fact, it was merely a suggestion coming from the attending doctor and not from the company-designated physician, as if the letter was written while the process of evaluation was still being completed. To stress, Section 20 (B)(3) of the POEA-SEC requires the declaration of fit to work or the degree of permanent disability by the company-designated physician and not by anyone else.[31] Here, it was only Dr. Chuasuan, Jr. who signed the suggested assessment, addressing the letter solely to Dr. Lim, the company-designated physician. Taken in this context, no assessment, definitive in character, from the companydesignated physician's end was issued to reflect whether Zafra was fit or unfit to resume duties within the 120/240 day period, as the case may be. Thus, the Court deems him unfit to resume work on board a sea vessel. It makes sense then to conclude that because Zafra has been deemed unfit to work elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60608 7/11