6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly period. His condition, it pointed out, "is still subject to the fact that the company physician has to make a determination whether he is fit for sea service or not; in any event, it did not negate the fact that if the seafarer was disabled continuously for more than 120 days, he is considered permanently disabled."[9] It noted that Dr. Tay had not declared Cabatay fit to work within the 240-day period. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, reiterating the same arguments they raised in the petition. Additionally, they manifested that Cabatay had already executed the NLRC award of $46,000.00 ($45,000.00 disability compensation and $1,000.00 as attorney's fees), thereby accepting "the correctness and propriety of the judgment award."[10] This was the reason, they explained, why they earlier moved to have the case declared moot and academic.[11] The appellate court denied the motion. The Petition The petitioners now ask the Court for a reversal of the CA rulings on the grounds that: (1) Cabatay's claim had been mooted when he enforced the NLRC award; (2) he is not entitled to permanent total disability compensation as Dr. Tay gave him only a combined 36% disability rating; and to damages, as they were in good faith in responding to his condition; (3) under the circumstances, his inability to work for more than 120 days does not constitute permanent total disability; and (4) petitioners Antonio Galvez, Jr., and Orlando Alidio are not liable to Cabatay's claim since they are mere corporate officers of the agency. The petitioners insist that Cabatay is entitled only to $45,000.00 in disability compensation representing the combined 36% disability rating given to him by Dr. Tay, and which had already been paid to him. This disability rating, they stress, was based on the compensation schedule under the very same TCC-FA relied upon by the labor arbiter for his decision. On the state of Cabatay's health, they urge the Court to take notice that his condition had "vastly improved as a result of his treatment, including arthroscopy surgery which the petitioners provided to him."[12] Further, the petitioners maintain that while Cabatay argues that he has already lost his profession and is entitled to 100% compensation, Section 19.3 on Permanent Medical Unfitness of the TCC-FA provides that "any seafarer assessed at less than 50% disability under the attached Annex 3 but certified as permanently unfit for further sea service by a doctor appointed mutually by the Owners/Managers and the ITF shall be entitled to 100% compensation."[13] The above CBA provision, they point out, was ignored in the resolution of Cabatay's claim. They submit that they proposed to have his medical condition referred to a mutually appointed doctor for determination, but he refused. His refusal, they argue, "should be taken as an admission against his interest."[14] The petitioners dispute the CA's pronouncement that Cabatay's mere inability to perform his duties for 120 days rendered him totally and permanently disabled. They contend that the 120-day rule for permanent total disability does not apply to his case elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61603 3/10