6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly one-month sickness allowance and attorney’s fees. On 26 October 2011, Rickmers elevated the case to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),[17] which affirmed the Decision of the LA on 5 June 2012. Rickmers filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the NLRC denied.[18] This denial prompted Rickmers to file a Rule 65 Petition with the CA.[19] CA Ruling On 8 August 2013, the CA rendered a Decision partially granting the Petition. It affirmed the NLRC ruling insofar as the latter awarded Montierro one-month sickness allowance.[20] The CA held, however, that he was entitled merely to “Grade 10” permanent partial disability benefits.[21] It also dropped the award of attorney’s fees granted to him earlier.[22] In its Decision downgrading the claim of Montierro to “Grade 10” permanent partial disability benefits only, the CA ruled that his disability could not be deemed total and permanent under the 240-day rule established by the 2008 case Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.[23] Vergara extends the period to 240 days when, within the first 120-day period (reckoned from the first day of treatment), a final assessment cannot be made because the seafarer requires further medical attention, provided a declaration has been made to this effect.[24] The CA pointed out that only 215 days had lapsed from the time of Montierro’s medical repatriation on 2 June 2010 until 3 January 2011, when the company-designated physician issued a “Grade 10” final disability assessment. It justified the extension of the period to 240 days on the ground that Dr. Alegre issued an interim disability grade of “10” on 3 September 2010, the 91st day of Montierro’s treatment, which was within the initial 120-day period. Further, the CA upheld the jurisprudential rule that, in case of conflict, it is the recommendation issued by the company-designated physician that prevails over the recommendation of the claimant’s physician of choice. On the deletion of the award of attorney’s fees, the CA reasoned that there was no sufficient showing of bad faith in Rickmer’s persistence in the case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of its cause based on the recommendation of the company-designated physician. RULE 45 PETITION Hence, Montierro filed a Rule 45 Petition with this Court. He contends in the main that he is entitled to full disability benefits. To support this thesis, he raises two arguments. First, Montierro insists that the 120-day rule laid down in the 2005 case Crystal Shipping, and not the 240-day rule introduced by the 2008 case Vergara, applies to this case. Montierro cites the more recent cases Wallem Maritime Services, Inc., v. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58779 3/9