5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Sibug is not entitled to permanent and total disability benefit for his Volendam injury. But he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefit for his Ryndam injury and to attorney’s fees. Sibug is not entitled to permanent and total disability benefit for his Volendam injury since he became already fit to work again as a seaman. He even admitted in his position paper that he was declared fit to work.[20] He was also declared fit for sea service after his pre-employment medical examination when he sought reemployment with petitioners. The medical certificate[21] declaring Sibug fit for sea service even bears his signature. And he was able to work again in the same capacity as waste handler in Ryndam. On this point, the Labor Arbiter’s ruling is amply supported by substantial evidence. On the other hand, the CA erred in ruling that Sibug is entitled to permanent and total disability benefit for the injury he suffered at the Volendam. The facts clearly show that he is not. As regards his Ryndam injury, we agree with the CA that Sibug is entitled to permanent and total disability benefit amounting to US$60,000. Petitioners, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC erred on this point. In Millan v. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc.,[22] we listed the following circumstances when a seaman may be allowed to pursue an action for permanent and total disability benefits: (a)The company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment would address his temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of the period to 240 days; (b)240 days had lapsed without any certification issued by the company-designated physician; (c) The company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case may be, but his physician of choice and the doctor chosen under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion; (d) The company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly with his employer, believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as well; (e) The company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading; (f) The company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable or work-related under the POEASEC but his doctor-of-choice and the third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and declared him unfit to work; (g) The company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and (h) The company-designated physician declared him partially and elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56804 4/7