6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly any capacity and entitled to 100% compensation, i.e., US$80,000.00 for officers and US$60,000.00 for ratings. Furthermore, any seafarer assessed at less than 50% disability under the Contract but certified as permanently unfit for further sea service in any capacity by the company doctor, shall also be entitled to 100% compensation.[32] Such provision finds no application in petitioner's case. Dr. Alegre, the companydesignated physician, gave petitioner a disability grade of 12 only, which is less than 50%, but he did not make a certification that petitioner was permanently unfit for further sea service. In fact, Dr. Alegre's medical report stated that petitioner's illness could be brought under control with proper diet, exercise and medications given an approximate time. Petitioner contends that the two company-designated physicians vary in their assessment of his medical condition, hence, he cannot be faulted for not relying on any of their findings but relied instead on Dr. Vicaldo's disability rating. We are not persuaded. After petitioner' repatriation on December 25, 1999, he was seen by Dr. Cruz seven times and was prescribed corresponding medications. He was declared fit to work on April 7, 2000 after his hypertension and diabetes mellitus were diagnosed to be controlled. However, when petitioner went to consult with Dr. Alegre on August 31, 2000, he was found not fit to work at that time because of his poorly-controlled diabetes mellitus and hypertension and gave him a disability rating of grade 12. The drastic change in petitioner's health condition, as indicated in Dr. Alegre's Report, was brought about by the non-compliance in the intake of medications. The interval of almost four months from April 7, 2000 and without the intake of proper medications explain the difference in the assessment of the two company designated doctors. Petitioner alleges that as he was unable to work for more than 120 days as a result of his illness, his condition constitutes permanent total disability relying on the case of Crystal Shipping Inc. v. Natividad.[33] The factual circumstances of the Crystal Shipping case is different. There, the seafarer was diagnosed with cancer and was assessed by the company-designated physician as suffering from Grade 9 disability, while his private doctor issued a Grade 1 disability. It was found that the seafarer was unable to work from August 18, 1998 to February 22, 1999, at the least, or more than 120 days, due to his medical treatment, which showed that his disability was permanent. In this case, petitioner was repatriated on December 25, 1999 and had been declared fit to work on April 7, 2000, which was within the. 120-day period treatment or the temporary total disability period from the date of the seafarer's sign-off. WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated September 9, 2005 and the Resolution dated December 9, 2005 of the Court of Appeals issued in CA-GR. SP No. 87979 are AFFIRMED. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61060 9/12