4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly total and permanent disability benefits. Consequently, any further discussion as to whether Taok’s ailments are compensable or whether his alleged disability is partial and permanent or total and permanent would be a mere surplusage. The medical certificates Taok presented to prove that he is totally and permanently disabled are of no use and will not give him that cause of action that he sorely lacked at the time he filed his complaint. Indeed, a seafarer has the right to seek the opinion of other doctors under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC but this is on the presumption that the company-designated physician had already issued a certification as to his fitness or disability and he finds this disagreeable. Under the same provision, it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing a seafarer’s disability and there is a procedure to contest his findings. It is patent from the records that Taok submitted these medical certificates during the pendency of his appeal before the NLRC. More importantly, Taok prevented the company- designated physician from determining his fitness or unfitness for sea duty when he did not return on October 18, 2006 for re-evaluation. Thus, Taok’s attempt to convince this Court to put weight on the findings of his doctors of-choice will not prosper given his failure to comply with the procedure prescribed by the POEA-SEC. Taok is not entitled to sickness wages from the period after he filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits. As provided under Paragraph 3, Section 20-B of the POEA-SEC, a seafarer is entitled to sickness wages during the period he is deemed to be temporarily and totally disabled. Without need for further extrapolation, the objective of the law in providing for the payment of sickness wages is to aid the seafarer while his disability prevents him from performing his usual duties. As discussed above, this condition of temporary and total disability may last for a period of 120 to 240 days depending on the need for further medical treatment. It bears emphasis, however, that the seafarer is not automatically entitled to 120 to 240 days worth of sickness wages. If the company-designated physician determines that the seafarer is already fit for sea duty, then, the employer’s obligation to pay sickness wages ceases and he is entitled to reinstatement to his former position. On the other hand, if the company-designated physician declares that the seafarer is already permanently disabled, the employer’s obligation to pay sickness wages likewise ceases as the obligation to pay the corresponding disability benefits. The lower tribunals unanimously ruled that Taok is entitled to sickness allowance in an amount equivalent to his wages for 120 days. This, however, is erroneous. They should have not lost sight of the fact that Taok had taken a position, albeit erroneous, that he was no longer temporarily disabled by filing a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits. Alternatively, the claim that petitioners should not be paying him sickness wages but the benefits corresponding to total and permanent disability is necessarily implied from Taok's choice of remedy and the time within which he made that choice: while the company-designated physician was still in the process of determining his fitness or unfitness for sea duty and within the 120-day period. Apart elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55036 13/15