1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly on February 5, 2010 until he was declared fit to work on July 9, 2010. In his July 18, 2013 Decision,[15] the Labor Arbiter disposed, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering [petitioners] JEBSENS MARITIME, INCORPORATED and HAPAG-LLYOD AKTIENGESELLSCHAF, jointly and severally, to pay [respondent] RUPERTO S. PASAMBA sickness allowance for USD4,800, plus, 10% attorney's fees of the monetary award. All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[16] The Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiter's Decision. In its December 11, 2013 Decision,[17] the NLRC ruled that respondent is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) considering that he was unable to work for more than 120 days. The NLRC pounded on the fact that respondent was declared fit to work only on July 9, 2010 or 154 days after sign off from the vessel. According to the NLRC, respondent's subsequent re-employment is of no moment as it came only after a year from the company-designated doctors' declaration of his fitness to work. Despite such re-employment, the fact remains that respondent was still unable to work for more than 120 days. The NLRC cited the case of Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad,[18] wherein the Court ruled that the fact that the seafarer was cured after a couple of years is not relevant to his claim for disability benefits as "[t]he law does not require that the illness should be incurable. What is important is that he was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total disability." Further, the NLRC also found that the exceptional 240-day period is not applicable to this case as such extension for the company-designated doctors to issue their final assessment "requires, as a condition sine qua non, that further treatment is required beyond 120 days and the company-designated physician must declare such." The NLRC found that the company-designated doctors made no such declaration in this case, concluding, thus, that the 240-day extension period cannot be applied.[19] Anent the sickness allowance, the NLRC found that the documentary evidence proved that payment made by the petitioners therefor covered only the period from March 1, 2010 to June 15, 2010. Thus, additional sickness allowance was ordered to be paid to cover the period from the date of respondent's sign off on February 5, 2010 to February 28, 2010.[20] The dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision reads, thus: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65696 3/13