6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., et al. v. Taok,[36] the Court enumerated the conditions which may be the basis for a seafarer's action for total and permanent disability benefits, as follows: (a) [T]he company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment would address his temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of the period to 240 days; (b) 240 days had lapsed without any certification being issued by the company-designated physician; (c) the companydesignated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case may be, but his physician of choice and the doctor chosen under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion; (d) the company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly with his employer, believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as well; (e) the company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading; (i) the company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice and the third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and declared him unfit to work; (g) the company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and (h) the company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of the said periods.[37] Incidentally, in the recent case of Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Simbajon,[38] the Court has mentioned that an amendment to Section 20-A(6) of the POEA-SEC, contained in POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of 2010,[39] now "finally clarifies" that "[f]or work-related illnesses acquired by seafarers from the time the 2010 amendment to the POEA-SEC took effect, the declaration of disability should no longer be based on the number of days the seafarer was treated or paid his sickness allowance, but rather on the disability grading he received, whether from the companydesignated physician or from the third independent physician, if the medical findings of the physician chosen by the seafarer conflicts with that of the company-designated doctor."[40] Conag failed to comply with Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC On December 1, 2009, after 95 days of therapy, Conag was pronounced by the company-designated doctors as fit to work. Later that day, he executed a certificate, in both English and Filipino, acknowledging that he was now fit to work. On December 5, 2009, he left for his home province of Negros Oriental, as he told his employers in his letter[41] dated February 9, 2010, wherein he expressed his desire to be redeployed. He told them that during his vacation he was able to engage in a lot of activities such elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61899 5/12