6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly petitioner in refusing to undergo surgery as recommended by Dr. Alegre. Records show that the petitioner underwent physical therapy. At the time Dr. Alegre made the disability assessment on January 20, 2007, he still presented physical therapy as an option. Again, the Court quotes: As [the petitioner] is still young, conservative management with physical therapy has been recommended by Orthopedics.[48] The petitioner cannot thus be faulted that he opted for physical therapy instead of surgery. If indeed surgery was the only way for the petitioner to be able to fully recover from his injury, he should have been categorically informed of such fact and warned of the consequences of his choice. The petitioner did not refuse treatment. He just availed of an option presented to him. Besides, even if he underwent surgery, there is likewise no assurance of full recovery. The Court also notes that nowhere is it shown in the records that the petitioner was reemployed as a utility cleaner by PTCI or by any other manning agency from the time of his repatriation on August 17, 2006 until the filing of the instant petition in 2009. This, to the Court, is an eloquent proof of his permanent disability.[49] In sum, the Court finds the petitioner entitled to total and permanent disability compensation. As to the amount, the Schedule of Disability Allowances found in Section 32 of the POEA SEC is applicable. Under the said section, a seafarer given a Grade 1 Disability assessment is entitled to US$60,000.00 (US$50,000.00 x 120%). The petitioner is entitled to attorney’s fees. The petitioner is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Article 2208(8)[50] of the Civil Code.[51] The Court, however, notes that the respondents provided the petitioner with medical treatment and offered to pay him disability benefits, albeit in the reduced amount. In other words, the acts of the respondents did not evince bad faith. The respondents did not completely shirk from their duties to the petitioner. Although the petitioner was still thus compelled to litigate to be entitled to total and permanent disability compensation, the Court finds the award of attorney’s fees in the amount of US$1,000.00 as reasonable.[52] Respondent Garillos is not personally liable for the monetary awards granted to the petitioner. As a general rule, the officers and members of a corporation are not personally liable for acts done in the performance of their duties.[53] “In the absence of malice, bad faith, or a specific provision of law making a corporate officer liable, such corporate officer cannot be made personally liable for corporate liabilities.”[54] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58964 14/18