4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly report, 197 days from Capoy’s repatriation on August 31, 2005, Capoy was legally under temporary total disability since the 240-day period under Section 2, Rule X of the Rules and Regulations implementing Book IV of the Labor Code had not yet lapsed. The LA, the NLRC and the CA, therefore, grossly misappreciated the facts and the applicable law when they ruled that because Capoy was unable to perform his work as a fitter for more than 120 days, he became entitled to permanent total disability benefits. The CA cited in support of its challenged ruling Dr. Salvador’s failure to make a disabability assessment or a fit-to-work declaration for Capoy after 197 days from his repatriation. This is a misappreciation of the underlying reason for the absence of Dr. Salvador’s assessment. There was no assessment yet because Capoy was still undergoing treatment and evaluation by the company doctors, especially the orthopedic surgeon, within the 240-day maximum period provided under the above-cited rule. To reiterate, Capoy was supposed to see the orthopedic surgeon for re-evaluation, but he did not honor the appointment. We cannot, under these circumstances, blame the petitioners for claiming that Capoy abandoned his treatment. Worse, he could even be dealing with the company doctors in bad faith while he was still undergoing treatment. For instance, he never offered any explanation for his failure to report to the orthopedic surgeon. The reason for this could be that he was just going through the motions of undergoing treatment with the company doctors. This is supported by the fact that while he still had schedules with the company doctors and without waiting for Dr. Salvador’s assessment of his condition, he filed a claim for permanent total disability benefits on January 19, 2006. [38] Even before his claim could be resolved, he had himself examined by Dr. Sabado who declared him "[u]nfit to any kind of work permanently."[39] Dr. Sabado’s declaration would not alter the fact that Capoy’s claim for permanent total disability benefits was premature. Considering that Capoy was still under treatment by the company doctors even after the lapse of 120 days but within the 240-day extended period allowed by the rules, he was under temporary total disability and entitled to temporary total disability benefits under the same rules. Moreover, with respect to Capoy’s failure to comply with the procedure under the POEA-SEC vis-a-vis Dr. Sabado’s certification, we find the following Court pronouncement in C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Taok[40] most applicable, thus: Indeed, a seafarer has the right to seek the opinion of other doctors under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC but this is on the presumption that the company-designated physician had already issued a certification as to his fitness or disability and he finds this disagreeable. Under the same provision, it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing a seafarer’s disablity and there is a procedure to contest his findings. It is patent from the records that Taok submitted these medical certificates during the pendency of his appeal before the NLRC. More importantly, Taok prevented the company-designated physician from determining his fitness or unfitness for sea duty when he did not return on October 18, 2006 for re-evaluation. Thus, Taok’s elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55931 9/12