3/25/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly suffers injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows: "x x x x c. The employer shall pay the seaman his basic wages from the time he leaves the vessel for medical treatment. After discharge from the vessel the seaman is entitled to hundred percent (100%) of his basic wages until he is declared fit to work or his degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician, but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days. x x x x "5. In case of permanent total or partial disability of the seaman during the term of his employment caused by either injury or illness the seaman shall be compensated in accordance with the schedule of benefits enumerated in Appendix 1 of his Contract. Computation of his benefits arising from an illness or disease shall be governed by the rates and the rules of compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease was contracted. x x x . . ." A cursory reading of these applicable contractual provisions and a thorough evaluation of the supporting evidence presented by both parties, lends strong credence to the contentions and arguments presented by private respondent. The award of disability compensation has a clear and valid basis in the Standard Employment Contract and the facts as supported by the medical certificate issued by Dr. Nannette Domingo-Reyes of the Manila Doctors Hospital. Petitioners' contention, that Dr. Domingo-Reyes is not company designated is far from the truth. The designation of the Manila Doctors Hospital by petitioners as the company doctor for private respondent cannot be denied. Their very act of committing private respondent for treatment at the Manila Doctors Hospital under the care of its physician is tantamount to company designation. The very act of paying the hospital bills by the petitioners constitutes their confirmation of such designation. Hence, petitioners cannot resort to the convenience of denying this fact just to evade their obligation to pay private respondent of his claims for disability benefit. This Court also finds no basis on (sic) the petitioners' contention that the company-designated [physician] must also be accredited with the POEA before he can engage in the medical treatment of a sick seaman. There is nothing in the Standard Employment Contract that provides this https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/50003 5/16