5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly remains unresolved, the law steps in to consider the latter's disability as total and permanent.[36] (Emphases supplied) In this case, record s show that the company-designated physician's Medical Report dated May 4, 2015 - which was the most recent medical report issued by respondents on Salas' medical status after his repatriation on March 21, 2015 - merely indicated that the specialist had opined Salas to be "cleared orthopedic wise." On its face, the said report did not state whether or not Salas was already fit to resume work or had been assessed with a certain disability grading. In fact, in the same report, Salas was required to undergo a repeat laboratory examination and to return for re-evaluation, the conduct of which were, however, not even shown by respondents. Neither was it claimed that Salas abandoned any further treatment. Thus, from all indications, it is fairly apparent that the May 4, 2015 Medical Report is not the final and definite disability assessment which respondents were required, by law, to issue within 120/240 days from Salas' repatriation on March 21, 2015. It bears reiteration that a final and definite disability assessment is necessary in order to truly reflect the true extent of the sickness or injuries of the seafarer and his or her capacity to resume work as such. Accordingly, the failure of the company-designated physician to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability within the prescribed periods - as in this case - renders the seafarer's disability as total and permanent by operation of law. In view of the foregoing, the Court therefore deems it proper to reverse the CA ruling and reinstate that of the LA, with modification imposing on the monetary awards due to Salas legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until full payment, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[37] At this juncture, it is apt to mention that - as observed by the LA - Salas' claims for moral and exemplary damages were not supported by any proof of bad faith or malice on respondents' part and hence, must be denied.[38] However, Salas is entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to Article 2208 (8) of the New Civil Code which states that the award of attorney's fees is justified in actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws.[39] WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated February 18, 2019 and the Resolution dated May 14,2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 150519 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision dated June 28, 2016 of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC NCR Case No. (M) 11-13007-15 awarding petitioner Wilfredo Lim Salas the amount of US$60,000.00 representing his total and permanent disability benefits and ten percent (10%) attorney's fees is hereby REINSTATED with MODIFICATION imposing on said awards legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until full payment. SO ORDERED. Hernando, Inting, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan,* JJ., concur. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66379 7/10