4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly than 120 days, and because Dr. David found him not fit to return to work as an able seaman. Hence, this petition which raises two legal issues: I. WHETHER OR NOT THE POEA CONTRACT CONSIDERS THE MERE LAPSE OF MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED TWENTY (120) DAYS AS TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY. II. WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS LEGAL BASIS TO AWARD RESPONDENT LOBUSTA ATTORNEY’S FEES.[24] Petitioners argue that the CA erred in applying the provisions of the Labor Code instead of the provisions of the POEA contract in determining Lobusta’s disability, and in ruling that the mere lapse of 120 days entitles Lobusta to total and permanent disability benefits. The CA allegedly erred also in holding them liable for attorney’s fees, despite the absence of legal and factual bases. The petition lacks merit. Petitioners are mistaken that it is only the POEA Standard Employment Contract that must be considered in determining Lobusta's disability. In Palisoc v. Easways Marine, Inc.,[25] we said that whether the Labor Code’s provision on permanent total disability applies to seafarers is already a settled matter. In Palisoc, we cited the earlier case of Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission[26] where we said (1) that the standard employment contract for seafarers was formulated by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under Executive Order No. 247[27] “to secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure compliance therewith,” and “to promote and protect the well-being of Filipino workers overseas”; (2) that Section 29 of the 1996 POEA Standard Employment Contract itself provides that all rights and obligations of the parties to the contract, including the annexes thereof, shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, international conventions, treaties and covenants where the Philippines is a signatory; and (3) that even without this provision, a contract of labor is so impressed with public interest that the Civil Code expressly subjects it to the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.[28] In affirming the Labor Code concept of permanent total disability, Remigio further stated: Thus, the Court has applied the Labor Code concept of permanent total disability to the case of seafarers. In Philippine Transmarine Carriers v. NLRC, seaman Carlos Nietes was found to be suffering from congestive heart failure and cardiomyopathy and was declared as unfit to work by the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/24827 5/13