6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly disability benefits after the expiration of 120 days from the time he signed off from the vessel to which he was assigned. Particularly, a seafarer’s inability to work and the failure of the company-designated physician to determine fitness or unfitness to work despite the lapse of 120 days will not automatically bring about a shift in the seafarer’s state from total and temporary to total and permanent, considering that the condition of total and temporary disability may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days. Nonetheless, Vergara was promulgated on October 6, 2008, or more than two (2) years from the time Munar filed his complaint and observance of the principle of prospectivity dictates that Vergara should not operate to strip Munar of his cause of action for total and permanent disability that had already accrued as a result of his continued inability to perform his customary work and the failure of the company-designated physician to issue a final assessment.[38] (Citations omitted, emphases in the original and underscoring ours) Similar to the circumstances obtained in Kestrel, the petitioner failed to assail the competence of the company-designated physicians, and seek the opinion of a third doctor mutually agreed upon by the parties. In Kestrel and the instant petition too, the disability assessment was made by the company-designated doctors after the lapse of 120 days from the seafarer’s repatriation. Likewise, in both cases, the complaints were filed by the seafarers before October 6, 2008, the date of the promulgation of Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., et al.[39] Applying the doctrines enunciated in Kestrel, the Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits under the provisions of the POEA SEC. It bears stressing that the Court need not even delve into the merits of the assessments made by Dr. Alegre, on one hand, and Dr. Garduce, on the other. This proceeds from an unalterable fact that Dr. Alegre had made the disability assessment on January 20, 2007, or over five months from the petitioner’s repatriation on August 17, 2006. Consequently, the rule on the 120-day period, during which the disability assessment should have been made in accordance with Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad,[40] the doctrine then prevailing before the promulgation of Vergara on October 6, 2008, stands. Hence, due to the failure of Dr. Alegre to issue a disability rating within the prescribed period, a conclusive presumption that the petitioner is totally and permanently disabled arose. As a result thereof, the petitioner is not legally compelled to observe the procedure laid down in Section 20-B(3) of the POEA SEC relative to the resort to a third doctor. As discussed earlier, the Court need not delve into the merits of the disability assessments made by Dr. Alegre and Dr. Garduce. However, it is worth noting that on January 20, 2007, Dr. Alegre informed PTCI that the petitioner was still suffering from persistent back pains. Thus, the Gabapentin dose prescribed to the petitioner was increased to 600 milligrams per day and physical therapy was continued.[41] Gabapentin tablets are used to treat long lasting pain caused by damage to the nerves. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58964 12/18