5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [T]he respondent in the case “was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total disability.” This declaration of a permanent total disability after the initial 120 days of temporary total disability cannot, however, be simply lifted and applied as a general rule for all cases in all contexts. The specific context of the application should be considered, as we must do in the application of all rulings and even of the law and of the implementing regulations. Under the above Court pronouncement, it is clear that the degree of a seafarer’s disability cannot be determined on the basis solely of the 120-day rule or in total disregard of the seafarer’s employment contract (executed in accordance with the POEA-SEC), the parties’ CBA if there is one, and Philippine law and rules in case of any unresolved dispute, claim or grievance arising out of or in connection with the POEASEC, as the Court explained in Vergara. Thus, in every maritime disability compensation claim, it is important to bear in mind that under Section 20(B)3 of the POEA-SEC, in the event a seafarer suffers a work-related injury or illness, the employer is liable only for the resulting disability that has been assessed or evaluated by the company-designated physician. If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer whose decision shall be final and binding on both parties. Further, the parties’ supposed CBA (the complete copy belatedly submitted by Ruizo to the CA[27]) contains an almost identical provision (as the POEA-SEC) in its Article 20.1.4.2.[28] Relatedly, there is one other POEA-SEC provision that is often overlooked or ignored, but which should be given due consideration in the determination of the seafarer’s disability compensation, and this is found in Section 20(B)6 which states: 6. In case of permanent total or partial disability of the seafarer caused by either injury or illness[,] the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance with the schedule of benefits arising from an illness or disease shall be governed by the rates and the rules of compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease was contracted.[29] In light of the above-cited provisions of the POEA-SEC which is the law between the parties,[30] we cannot find a basis for the award of permanent total disability benefits to Ruizo, except the much belabored 120-day rule. The rule, as earlier emphasized, had already been modified pursuant to the Court’s pronouncement in Vergara. It cannot simply “be xxx applied as a general rule for all cases and in all contexts.”[31] In short, it cannot be used as a cure-all formula for all maritime compensation cases. Its application must depend on the circumstances of the case, including especially compliance with the parties’ contractual duties and obligations as laid down in the POEA-SEC and/or their CBA, if one exists. Thus, the CA ruled outside of legal contemplation and thus committed grave abuse of discretion. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56718 5/11