1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In Oriental Shipmanagement Co., Inc. vs. Ocangas,[30] the Court pointed out its ruling in Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. vs. Munar[31] where it, in turn, clarified that if the seafarer filed his or her case for disability benefits before October 6, 2008 (the date the Court promulgated its ruling in Vergara), the 120-day rule shall apply. However, if the case was filed after October 6, 2008, as in this case, the 240-day rule elucidated in Vergara and discussed above must be considered. In this case, while petitioner properly reported to the company-designated doctor upon his repatriation, he nevertheless did not continue his treatment despite the clear instruction of the company-designated doctor for him to continue to do so. During this time, it is evident that petitioner needed further medical attention and the maximum period of 240 days had not yet lapsed. Hence, petitioner cannot invoke that simply because 120 days had passed, he was already entitled to full disability benefits. As mentioned, the Court itself made it clear in Kestrel that the 240-day rule must be observed in deciding disability benefits cases filed after its ruling in Vergara. Petitioner is nonetheless entitled to Grade 11 disability benefits Similar to the finding of the CA, the Court decrees that petitioner is nevertheless entitled to Grade 11 disability rating, as determined by the company-designated doctor within the specified period of 240 days. The Court gives weight to this finding as neither party refuted that the company-designated doctor indeed made such diagnosis within the allowable period for him to do so.[32] Given all these, the Court rules that the CA did not err in ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in affirming the LA Decision. The assailed CA Decision and Resolution are well in accord with applicable laws and prevailing jurisprudence thus, must be upheld by the Court. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 23, 2016 and the Resolution dated August 4, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141829 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Peralta, (Chairperson), Leonen, A. Reyes, Jr., and Hernando, JJ., concur. September 12, 2019 NOTICE OF JUDGMENT Sirs / Mesdames: Please take notice that on August 5, 2019 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on September 12, 2019 at 1:10 p.m. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65555 7/9