1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of the said periods. Keeping these guidelines in mind, the Court finds that the CA did not err in ruling that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the LA Decision awarding permanent and total disability benefits to petitioner. To recall, from his repatriation on September 19, 2013, petitioner had been under the care of the company-designated doctor, who regularly monitored and issued reports on petitioner's condition. However, after his physical therapy session on February 28, 2014, petitioner simply did not return for his treatment. At that time, petitioner was on the 162nd day of treatment, and the company-designated doctor has not yet issued his definite declaration on petitioner's condition for the apparent reason that petitioner was still under treatment and the maximum period of 240 days to issue the certification had not yet lapsed. It is equally important to note that when petitioner filed his disability case on March 31, 2014, only 193 days had lapsed, which is again, within the above-cited 240-day period. This only means that there were remaining days for the company-designated doctor to issue his assessment on petitioner's condition. However, without waiting for such declaration and/or the lapse of the 240-day period, petitioner prematurely filed this suit even if his cause of action had not yet accrued. Put in another way, petitioner's cause of action had not yet accrued considering that the 240-day period had not yet lapsed and the company-designated doctor still had a remaining period within which to give his definitive assessment on the medical condition or the fitness of petitioner to return to work. In fact, prior to the filing of the case, petitioner was under the close monitoring of the company-designated physician and the latter even assured him that after completing six physical therapy sessions, he would be given fit-to-work certification. However, petitioner simply did not report back to the company-designated doctor, and already filed this case against respondents. Moreover, the opinion of petitioner's personal doctor cannot be given credence since it did not give petitioner the necessary cause of action he lacked when he filed the complaint. Indeed., while a seafarer has the right: to seek the opinion of other doctors, such right may be availed of on the presumption that the company-designated doctor had already issued a definite declaration on the condition of the seafarer, and the seafarer finds it disagreeable. Given the lack of certification from the companydesignated doctor, petitioner cannot rely on the assessment made by his own doctor. [29] Maximum period of 240 days applies to this case Petitioner contends that he is entitled to full disability benefits on the ground that the company-designated doctor failed to give his assessment on petitioner's condition within the 120-day period from his repatriation. The Court is unconvinced. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65555 6/9