1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly prompted to consult another doctor. However, while indeed a seafarer has the right to seek the opinion of other doctors under Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, this is on the presumption that the company-designated physician had already issued a certification on his fitness or disability and he finds this disagreeable.[51] As case law holds, the company-designated physician is expected to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or to determine his disability within a period of 120 or 240 days from repatriation. The 120-day period applies if the duration of the seafarer's treatment does not exceed 120 days. On the other hand, the 240-day period applies in case the seafarer requires further medical treatment after the lapse of the initial 120day period. In case the company-designated doctor failed to issue a declaration within the given periods, the seafarer is deemed totally and permanently disabled.[52] When petitioner chose not to show up at the appointed date of consultation, effectively preventing Dr. Gonzales from making a fitness or disability assessment, he breached his duty under the 2000 POEA-SEC. Without any final assessment from the companydesignated physician, petitioner's claim for permanent total disability benefits must fail. Indeed, when petitioner filed his complaint before the LA on January 14, 2010, or 154 days after his repatriation, he had no cause of action against respondents because Dr. Gonzales has not yet issued an assessment on his fitness or unfitness for sea duty. The 240-day maximum period for treatment has not yet lapsed. We cannot subscribe to petitioner's theory that the company-designated physician only had 120 days from repatriation to issue a disability assessment. Case law teaches that the 120-day rule applies only when the complaint was filed prior to October 6, 2008. However, if the complaint was filed from October 6, 2008 onwards, as in this case, the 240-day rule applies.[53] It was thus error on the part of petitioner to reckon his entitlement to permanent and total disability benefits based on the 120-day rule. All told, the CA did not err in reversing the rulings of the LA and the NLRC. Petitioner cannot claim total and permanent disability benefits against respondents because he committed fraudulent misrepresentation and medical abandonment, both of which disqualify a seafarer from any disability compensation. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The October 2, 2013 Decision and January 22, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 122984 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Bersamin, C. J., (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, (Working Chairperson), Gesmundo, and Carandang, JJ., concur. [1] Rollo, p. 47. [2] Id. at 361, 428. [3] Id. at 361, 431. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65565 7/10