5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Significantly, Ruizo himself recognized the relevance of the POEA-SEC in his case when he acknowledged that under the contract, “a medically repatriated seafarer is subject for examination and treatment by the company designated physician for a period not exceeding 120 days. After which the company designated physician will make [an] assessment whether the seafarer had already become fit for work or not.”[32] Ruizo, however, was not medically repatriated; he went home for a finished contract.[33] In any event, as we said in Vergara: “a temporary total disability only becomes permanent when so declared by the company physician within the periods he is allowed to do so, or upon the expiration of the maximum 240-day medical treatment period[34] without a declaration of either fitness to work or the existence of a permanent disability.”[35] Although the 240-day maximum treatment period under the rules had already expired, counted from his repatriation on December 21, 2005, it can be said that Ruizo and the petitioners agreed to have the treatment period extended as it was obvious that he still needed treatment. In fact, he agreed, after some trepidation, to be subjected to an ultrasound procedure (ESWL) in the effort of the petitioners to improve his condition; he was expected to return after February 5, 2007 to Dr. Cruz for a repeat ESWL, but he failed to do so. Clearly, under the circumstances, the 120-day rule had lost its relevance. B. Compliance with the POEA-SEC As earlier emphasized, under the POEA-SEC, the employer is liable for a seafarer’s disability, resulting from a work-connected injury or illness, only after the degree of disability has been established by the company-designated physician and, if the seafarer consulted with a physician of his choice whose assessment disagrees with that of the company-designated physician, the disagreement must be referred to a third doctor for a final assessment.[36] In the present dispute, no showing exists that the relevant POEA-SEC provisions had been observed or complied with. While Ruizo reported to Dr. Cruz upon his repatriation for examination and treatment, he cut short his sessions with the doctor and missed an important medical procedure (ESWL) which could have improved his health condition and his capability to work.[37] Ruizo’s explanation that he did not return for further ESWL because Dr. Cruz told him that he would already be forwarding his assessment to the petitioners is belied by the doctor’s report[38] to the agency dated March 19, 2007, stating that he did not return for further ESWL. The reason for Ruizo’s failure to return and continue his treatment with Dr. Cruz was, as the LA aptly saw it, his awareness of the possibility that he could be declared fit to work after treatment. Thus, the LA said: If there was persistence of right kidney stone and a schedule of repeat ultrasound then how can complainant rightfully claim that he is done with the consultation with the company doctor. This reveals elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56718 6/11