4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Likewise, in Seagull Maritime Corp. v. Dee, involving a 1999 overseas contract, the Court sustained the NLRC and CA that the medical reports issued by the physicians of choice of the claimant were more in accord with the evidence, and rejected the one issued by the company-designated physician for inconsistency between the recommendation that the disability of the claimant is at Grade 11 only and the finding explicitly stated therein that "there is no guarantee that [claimant] will be able to return to his previous strenuous work." There the Court categorically ruled that “nowhere x x x did we hold that the company-designated physician’s assessment of the nature and extent of a seaman's disability is final and conclusive on the employer company and the seafarer-claimant x x x while it is the companydesignated physician who must declare that the seaman suffered a permanent disability during employment, it does not deprive the seafarer the right to seek a second opinion." The Court emphasized this view in Micronesia Resources v. Cantomayor. [citations omitted, italics supplied] Thus, we find it proper that the labor arbiter used the disability grading given by Serna’s personal physician in determining his disability compensation. The labor arbiter had no choice; although the petitioners’ designated physicians at the Seaman’s Hospital declared Serna to be unfit for work on August 5, 1999, they omitted to assess his disability grading. As a final point, the petitioners’ discussion on the distinction between disability benefits under the Labor Code and those under the 1996 POEA-SEC holds no particular significance in this case. The discussion was prompted by the petitioners’ observation that while Serna sought benefits under the 1996 POEA-SEC, he alleged that he had been ill for more than 120 days. The mistake, however, cannot defeat Serna’s claim. The petitioners omit to mention that Serna claimed disability benefits under the parties’ CBA, not simply under the 1996 POEA-SEC.[42] In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.,[43] we stated that the POEA-SEC is supplemented by the CBA between the owner of the vessel and the covered seafarers. In this case, the pertinent CBA provides: Permanent Medical Unfitness — A seafarer whose disability is assessed at 50% or more under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, shall for the purpose of this paragraph is regarded as permanently unfit for further sea service in any capacity and entitled to 100% compensation, i.e. US$80,000 for officers and US$60,000 for ratings.[44] For this reason, what is pertinent to Serna’s claim is his proof that he had been issued a disability grading of “3.” As the CA correctly noted, an Impediment Grade of 3 under the Schedule of Disability Allowances in Section 30-A of the 1996 POEA-SEC is equivalent to a 78.36% disability assessment. In light of the above conclusions, we hold that the CA correctly found that the NLRC elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55380 9/13