6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 11. That my injuries which I sustained in my previous accident on board the vessel “FAYAL CEMENT” had recurred and its recurrence was triggered by my injury which I sustained due to the bad fall on board the vessel MV “IBIS ARROW.” 12. x x x x 13. That I feel that my injuries has (sic) already rendered me permanently disabled, hence I am now seeking my permanent disability compensation in accordance with my CBA, my sick wages for 130 days, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees and other benefits provided by law. Dr. Jacinto’s findings cannot be accorded more weight over those of the Company-Designated Physicians Moreover, in Dumadag, the seafarer consulted his own physician on four (4) dates. The petitioner in the case at bench was examined by his own doctor for only one (1) day, that is, on April 13, 2010, almost four (4) months after he was declared fit to work by the company-designated doctors. Even worse, the medical certificate of Dr. Jacinto failed to state the reasons on which he based his conclusion. Thus, the Court finds that the conclusions of Dr. Jacinto cannot prevail over the findings of the respondents’ physicians. Petitioner is Fit to Work Aside from the finding of the company-designated physicians, it is worthy to note that the evidence on record indubitably shows that petitioner continued to work as a seaman under another employer. As aptly pointed out by the respondents, petitioner was able to acquire gainful employment with Imperial and was able to fully serve two (2) separate employment contracts with them.[36] Several medical certifications from his pre-employment examinations were even issued attesting to his overall fitness.[37] Certainly, the Court cannot ignore these facts. Petitioner is not Entitled to his Monetary Claims In view of the foregoing, petitioner is not entitled to his monetary claims. It should be remembered that permanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of similar nature, that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment could do. In disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one’s earning capacity.[38] As petitioner was never actually incapacitated, it would be highly unjust if he would be awarded the disability benefits which the law accords only to the deserving and utterly unfair to the respondents if they would be made to pay. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58873 10/13