6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly and thereby dismissed petitioner's complaint for disability benefits. The CA ruled that petitioner's claim for permanent total disability benefits was premature, considering that at the time of the filing of the complaint: (a) petitioner was still under medical treatment by the company-designated physicians; (b) no medical assessment has yet been issued by the company-designated physicians as to his fitness or disability since the allowable 240-day treatment period during which he is considered under temporary total disability has not yet lapsed; and (c) petitioner has not yet consulted his own doctor, hence, had no sufficient basis to prove his incapacity.[45] Moreover, the CA gave more credence to the fit to work assessment of the companydesignated physician, Dr. Cruz, who treated and closely monitored petitioner's condition, over the contrary declaration of petitioner's independent doctor, Dr. Garcia, who attended to him only once, and in fact, merely limited himself to a review of petitioner's medical history and a reiteration of the diagnoses of the companydesignated physicians, without conducting any medical or confirmatory tests or procedures to refute their findings.[46] It further noted that petitioner only sought Dr. Garcia's medical opinion two (2) months after the filing of the complaint,[47] and that the latter did not unequivocally state that petitioner was totally and permanently unfit to work, but only declared him unfit to work at that time, without giving any disability grading.[48] The CA likewise deleted the award of attorney's fees, holding the same to be unwarranted in the absence of showing of bad faith and malice on the part of respondents.[49] Undaunted, petitioner sought reconsideration,[50] which was, however, denied in a Resolution[51] dated November 21, 2014; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The core issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting petitioner's claim for permanent total disability benefits. The Court's Ruling The petition lacks merit. The entitlement of overseas seafarers to disability benefits is a matter governed, not only by medical findings, but also by law and contract.[52] The pertinent statutory provisions are Articles 197 to 199[53] (formerly Articles 191 to 193) of the Labor Code in relation to Section 2 (a),[54] Rule X of the Rules implementing Title II, Book IV of the said Code.[55] On the other hand, the relevant contracts are: (a) the POEA-SEC, which is a standard set of provisions that is deemed incorporated in every seafarer's contract of employment; (b) the CBA, if any; and (c) the employment agreement between the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61727 4/13