G. R. No. 179177 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179177.htm allowance x x x until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician x x x. xxxx If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctors decision shall be final and binding on both parties. (Emphasis supplied.) Without the opinion of a doctor for respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS, or one they could have jointly chosen with petitioner Nisda, we are constrained to make a ruling based on the evidence already submitted by the parties and made part of the records of this case, including the medical certifications petitioner Nisda obtained from his attending physicians. Undoubtedly then, under his POEA-SEC, which incorporated the 2000 POEA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions, petitioner Nisda has a right to receive disability benefit and sickness allowance for 120 days, on account of his Coronary Heart Disease, which qualifies as a total and permanent disability with Grade I Impediment. The computation of the monetary award as stated in the decision of the labor arbiter, however, must be modified in that the sickness allowance for 120 days should be based merely on petitioner Nisdas basic salary of US$1,437.00 per month under his POEA-SEC, multiplied by 4 months for a total of US$5,748.00. With regard to his disability benefit classified as Grade I Impediment, he should receive 120% of US$50,000.00 as dictated by the 2000 [80] and POEA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions, specifically Secs. 20(B)(3) [81] [82] [83] 20(B)(6) vis--vis Secs. 32 and 32-A. The 10% attorney's fee that was awarded by the Labor Arbiter shall also be maintained, but must reflect the modified amount of the sickness allowance and disability benefit and to be deducted from the winning amount [84] due. All told, the evidence, including medical documentation, presented by petitioner Nisda, substantially proved that a reasonable connection existed between the work he performed for respondent ADAMS and the development and exacerbation of his Coronary Artery Disease, hence, making it an occupational disease, as described and compensated for by Sec. 32-A of the 2000 POEA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions. Consequently, it was erroneous for the NLRC and the Court of Appeals to deny petitioner Nisdas claims for disability benefits under Sec. 20(B), paragraph 6 of the 2000 POEA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions. 24 of 29 1/28/2016 1:07 PM