8/20/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly time he filed his complaint, he was still under temporary total disability. Instead of continuing his treatment which is still within the 240-day period allowed for the company-designated physician to evaluate his condition, he filed a case for total and permanent disability benefits despite the absence of a definite finding from the company-designated physician. He was armed only with the interim assessment of the company-designated physician which did not give him the cause of action for his claim. It was only after the filing of such complaint or on July 9, 2012 that he sought the opinion of his own physician, Dr. Cadag. As such, the complaint should have been dismissed for lack of cause of action.[43] From the foregoing, Torillos had no cause of action for total and permanent disability claim. At most, he is only qualified to claim partial permanent disability benefits equivalent to Grade 8 disability rating under the POEA-SEC, as reflected in Dr. Cruz' last assessment report. Torillos is not entitled to attorney's fees. In labor cases, attorney's fees are awarded when there is unlawful withholding of wages or benefits due,[44] forcing the employee to litigate.[45] In the present case, there was no unlawful withholding of benefits to speak of. As discussed, Torillos filed a case against Eastgate while he was still undergoing treatment and without yet a final disability assessment from the company-designated physician. His act was premature which stripped him of entitlement to attorney's fees. Besides, Torillos was already barred from claiming attorney's fees for his failure to timely file an appeal from the October 29, 2012 Decision of the Labor Arbiter which did not award attorney's fees in his favor. In his Memorandum of Partial Appeal, Torillos alleged that he timely filed his appeal within the prescriptive period from his receipt of the January 3, 2013 Decision of the Labor Arbiter. However, the reglementary period should be counted from the receipt of the October 29, 2012 Decision and not from the January 3, 2013 Decision. The January 3, 2013 Decision was only an amendment to the October 29, 2012 Decision to correct a mere clerical error, i.e., to correct the names of the parties in the dispositive portion of the decision, and thus, was not a new judgment.[46] As such, the period for filing the appeal should still be counted from the receipt of the original judgment.[47] WHEREFORE, the assailed April 1, 2014 Decision and December 15, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 130976 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is rendered finding Edgar L. Torillos entitled to disability benefits corresponding only to Grade 8. Eastgate Maritime Corporation, F.J. Lines, Inc., Panama, and Emmanuel L. Regio are ordered to jointly and solidarily pay Edgar L. Torillos US$16,795.00 (US$50,000.00 x 33.59%) or its equivalent amount in Philippine currency at the time of payment. SO ORDERED. Bersamin, Jardeleza, Gesmundo, and Carandang, JJ., concur. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64930 10/13