5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly notifying a person/party who was not anymore privy to any contract at all makes no sense. Also, APQ sent OWWA another letter,[28] dated April 24, 2006, giving information on the status of MV Haitien Pride. The same letter confirmed that APQ and Crew Management had constant communication with each other regarding the said vessel and its crew. Alex P. Quillope, APQ’s President, even stated in the same letter that: Soon as I receive any information from them, I will at once inform your good office as I have then already prepared my travel again to Miami, Florida once MV Haitien Pride be on her sailing to Miami.[29] APQ cannot now feign ignorance of any extension of the contract and claim that it did not consent to it. As it had knowledge of the extended contract, APQ is solidarily liable with Crew Management for Caseñas’ claims. Caseñas is, therefore, entitled to the unpaid wages during the extended portion of his contract. As to his claim for medical and other benefits, there is no dispute that the symptoms of Caseñas’ illness began to manifest during the term of his employment contract. The fact that the manifestations of the illness only came about in August 2006 will not bar a conclusion that he contracted the ailment while the contract was subsisting. The overall state and condition that he was exposed to over time was the very cause of his illness. Thus, the CA was correct in reinstating the NLRC resolution awarding sickness allowance as well as disability benefits in favor of Caseñas. Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean Going Vessels provides: B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS xxx 3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days. For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a postemployment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits. If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56987 10/14