6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly after the expiration of the 240-day period, it would be illogical to declare him as merely permanently, partially disabled. To reiterate, partial disability exists only if a seafarer is found capable of resuming sea duties within the 120/240 period. Here, there was no such finding. Thus, the petitioners' claim that Zafra only suffered a partial disability has undoubtedly no basis on record. If at all, the basis was not strong enough to merit its affirmation by the NLRC and the CA. Conversely, the weight of evidence overwhelmingly tilts on the side of Zafra. Evident in the record is the fact that he has remained unemployed as a seafarer for more than 240 days from the time of his repatriation on October 22, 2009. His allegation that he was unable to perform the same physical activities he used to perform prior to his injury has not been contradicted by the petitioners or by contrary documentary evidence. Even the latest medical report, dated August 20, 2010, shows that as of July 20, 2010 (exceeding 240 days from the date of repatriation), Zafra remained a victim of the same disability: Final Diagnosis (July 20, 2010) - Probable Medial meniscal Tear, Left Knee; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear, Left Knee; S/P Arthoroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction, Left Knee with an incidental finding of Urinary Tract Infection.[32] These circumstances are in accord with Zafra's contention that he should be deemed to be suffering permanent total disability. The CA was correct in ruling in his favor, being consistent with jurisprudence. In Fil-Pride Shipping Company, Inc. v. Balasta[33] the Court held that the "companydesignated physician must arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability within the period of 120 or 240 days, pursuant to Article 192 (c)(l) of the Labor Code and Rule X, Section 2 of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation. If he fails to do so and the seafarer's medical condition remains unresolved, the latter shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled." Similarly, in United Philippine Lines v. Sibig[34] and Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Lobusta[35] the Court also affirmed the award of US$60,000 as permanent and total disability benefits where after the lapse of 240 days there was no declaration of permanent disability issued by the company-designated physician. Recently, in Carcedo v. Maine Marine Philippines, Inc.,[36] which cited Krestel and Vergara, the seafarer therein was discharged from the hospital on June 6, 2009, or 137 days from repatriation. The seafarer returned to the hospital for follow-up consultation on June 15, 2009, where the company-designated physician noted that seafarer's wound was still open and that he was to continue his medications. That was 146 days from repatriation, and company-designated physician still had nearly 100 days within which to give the final disability assessment, yet he gave none. The Court concluded that: The company-designated physician failed to give a definitive impediment rating of Carcedo's disability beyond the extended temporary disability elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60608 8/11