6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the company-designated doctor's certification is the final determination that must prevail, x x x.[65] In any event, the findings of the company-designated physicians should prevail, considering that they examined, diagnosed, and treated petitioner from his repatriation on March 11, 2012 until he was assessed fit to work after 194 days of treatment on September 21, 2012; whereas the independent physician, Dr. Garcia, examined petitioner only once on October 2, 2012, more than two (2) months after he filed his claim for permanent and total disability benefits before the NLRC on July 20, 2012. Case law holds that, under these circumstances, the assessment of the companydesignated physician should be given more credence for having been arrived at after months of medical attendance and diagnosis, compared to the assessment of a private physician done only in one (1) day on the basis of an examination or existing medical records.[66] Verily, petitioner's failure to observe the conflict-resolution procedure under the POEASEC and the CBA provided a sufficient ground for the denial of his claim for permanent total disability benefits. Considering, however, the undisputed fact that petitioner still needed medical treatment beyond the initial 120-day treatment period, which lasted for 194 days from his repatriation as found by the CA,[67] he is entitled to the income benefit for temporary total disability[68] provided under Section 2 (a), Rule X of the Rules implementing Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code, during the extended period of treatment or for 194 days, computed from petitioner's repatriation on March 11, 2012 until September 21, 2012 when he last visited the company-designated physician. However, the Court finds no basis to hold respondent Dohle Seafront President Padiz, solidarity liable with respondents Dohle Manning and Dohle Seafront for the payment of the monetary awards granted to petitioner, absent any showing that he had acted beyond the scope of his authority or with malice. Settled is the rule that in the absence of malice and bad faith, or a specific provision of law making a corporate officer liable, such officer cannot be made personally liable for corporate liabilities.[69] Finally, anent petitioner's claim for attorney's fees,[70] while respondents have not been shown to have acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy petitioner's demands, it is settled that where an employee is forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his right and interest, he is entitled to an award of attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total award at the time of actual payment.[71] WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 10, 2014 and the Resolution dated November 21, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 130266, dismissing petitioner Jakerson G. Gargallo's claim for permanent total disability benefits are hereby AFFIRMED. However, respondents Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc. and Dohle Manning Agencies, Inc. are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay petitioner income benefit for one hundred ninety-four (194) days, plus ten percent (10%) of the total amount of the income benefit as attorney's fees. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61727 8/13