4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly of either fitness to work or the existence of a permanent disability. x x x.[40] (Emphases ours.) Incidentally, although the contract involved in Vergara was the 2000 POEA SEC, the Court applied the ruling therein to the case of Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Lobusta,[41] which involved the 1996 POEA SEC. As noted in Lobusta, the first paragraph of Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA SEC was copied verbatim from the first paragraph of Section 20(B)(3) of the 1996 POEA SEC. From the foregoing exposition, Medel’s entitlement to permanent total disability benefits becomes clear. Medel was accidentally injured on board the M/V Optima on March 1, 1999, where he sustained an open depressed fracture on the left frontal side of his forehead, as well as damage to his left eye and frontal sinus. Since his repatriation to the Philippines on March 13, 1999, Medel underwent medical treatment for his condition under the supervision of Dr. Lim, the company-designated physician, at the Metropolitan Hospital. He was initially given medications to manage his condition and he went through surgical procedures to repair the damage to his left eye on April 22, 1999, July 14, 1999 and July 19, 1999. Medel’s condition was continuously evaluated by the hospital’s ophthalmologist and neurologist. On October 20, 1999, Medel went through the procedure of cranioplasty to repair his fractured skull.[42] According to Dr. Lim, Medel was seen by the hospital neurologist and neurosurgeon on February 11, 2000, on which date he was pronounced fit to resume sea duties. Unmistakably, from the time Medel signed off from the vessel on March 13, 1999 up to the time his fitness to work was declared on February 11, 2000, more than eleven (11) months, or approximately 335 days, have lapsed. During this period, Medel was totally unable to pursue his occupation as a seafarer. Following the guidelines laid down in Vergara, it is evident that the maximum 240-day medical treatment period expired in this case without a declaration of Medel’s fitness to work or the existence of his permanent disability determined. Accordingly, Medel’s temporary total disability should be deemed permanent and thus, he is entitled to permanent total disability benefits. With respect to the alleged earlier pronouncement of Dr. Ong as to the fitness of Medel for sea duties, the Court is not thereby persuaded. To recall, the said pronouncement was made on October 25, 1999 in a letter addressed to Dr. Lim after the cranioplasty of Medel was undertaken on October 20, 1999. After explaining the delay in the conduct of the said procedure, Dr. Ong stated that he “think[s] patient can resume sea duties without any disability.”[43] The statement of Dr. Ong, however, was not a categorical attestation as to the actual fitness of Medel to resume his occupation as a seafarer. Plainly, after Medel underwent cranioplasty to repair the fracture in his skull, it is not farfetched to assume that he still needed additional time for his wound to heal and to recuperate in order to restore himself to his former state of health. In their Memorandum, petitioners even acknowledged that despite the above opinion of Dr. Ong, Medel continued to avail of further medical treatment and rehabilitation.[44] Medel also had to be evaluated by specialists to assess his condition. In their Memorandum, petitioners related that “[u]ltimately, the company-designated physicians declared that petitioner was 'fit to resume sea duties' by Medical Certificate dated 15 February 2000." elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55119 10/14