must do in the application of all rulings and even of the law and of the implementing regulations.   Crystal Shipping was a case where the seafarer was completely unable to work for three years and was undisputably unfit for sea duty due to respondents need for regular medical check-up and treatment which would not be available if he were at sea.[42]While the case was not clear on how the initial 120-day and subsequent temporary total disability period operated, what appears clear is that the disability went beyond 240 days without any declaration that the seafarer was fit to resume work. Under the circumstances, a ruling of permanent and total disability was called for, fully in accordance with the operation of the period for entitlement that we described above. Viewed from this perspective, the petitioner cannot cite the Crystal Shipping ruling as basis for his claim for permanent total disability.   Additionally and to reiterate what we pointed out above regarding the governing rules that affect the disability of Filipino seafarers in ocean-going vessels, the POEA Standard Employment Contract provides its own Schedule of Disability or Impediment for Injuries Suffered and Diseases Including Occupational Diseases or Illness Contracted (Section 32); Disability Allowances (a subpart of Section 32); and its own guidelines on Occupational Diseases (Section 32-A) which cannot be disregarded in considering disability compensation and benefits. All these read in relation with applicable Philippine laws and rules should also be taken into account in considering and citing Crystal Shipping and its related line of cases as authorities.   In light of the above conclusions, we see no need to discuss the petitioners other submissions that the lack of disability has rendered moot, particularly the existence of doubt that the petitioner insists should be resolved in his favor.   WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petition for lack of merit.