6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly physical therapy upon a showing of clinical improvement on his part, petitioner was issued Grade 9.0 interim disability rating on 31 January 2008 and was given a fair to good prognosis with an estimated length of 4 to 6 “more weeks of continuous rehabilitation for pain management and rehabilitation exercises.” Returning for reevaluation on 24 March 2008, it appears that petitioner was directed to continue his rehabilitation treatment and to come back for re-evaluation on 4 April 2008.[27] Rather than heeding said advice, however, petitioner commenced the instant suit with the filing of his complaint for disability compensation on 25 March 2008. Notable from the foregoing circumstances is the fact that petitioner was given an interim disability assessment on 31 January 2008 or after only 82 days from his referral to the company designated physicians. Given the improvement of his condition as a consequence of the rehabilitation he underwent, petitioner was advised to continue said rehabilitation which effectively served as justification for the extension of the 120-day period. Having been so advised and to return on 24 March 2008 which would have been the 149th day since his 27 October 2007 referral by respondents to the companydesignated physicians, petitioner was directed to continue his rehabilitation and to return for re-evaluation on 4 April 2008, the 160th day from said referral. When he chose to ignore said advice and to file his complaint on 25 March 2008, petitioner had, therefore, so far undergone treatment and rehabilitation recommended by the company-designated physician for a period of 150 days only. In insisting of his entitlement to permanent total disability benefits on the ground that his incapacity had already lasted beyond the initial 120-day period, petitioner loses sight of the fact that, for purposes of arriving at a definite assessment of the seafarer’s fitness to work or permanent disability, the company-designated physician is given a period of 120 days which could be extended to 240 days[28] where, as here, further treatment is required. Despite the lapse of said 120 days, it cannot be gainsaid that petitioner was, therefore, still considered to be a state of temporary total disability when he filed his complaint on 25 March 2008. It cannot be over-emphasized that temporary total disability only becomes permanent when, within said 240-day period, the company-designated physician declares it to be so or fails to make such declaration.[29] Contrary to petitioner’s position, therefore, the mere lapse of the 120day period does not, by and of itself, automatically warrant the payment of permanent total disability benefits.[30] By the time he filed his complaint on 25 March 2008, petitioner cannot be said to have already acquired a cause of action for permanent total disability benefits.[31] Instead of the permanent total disability compensation awarded by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, therefore, the CA correctly determined petitioner to be entitled to the income benefit corresponding to the period of time that he was undergoing rehabilitation or in a state of temporary total disability. Formulated by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under Executive Order No. 247, the POEA-SEC was, to be sure, formulated to secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers, to ensure compliance therewith and to promote and protect the well-being of Filipino workers overseas.[32] This laudable intent, notwithstanding, it still goes without saying that its provisions cannot be interpreted to cover situations not therein contemplated, much elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62366 6/9