6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Tanawan,[25] Maersk Filipinas Crewing, Inc. v. Mesina,[26] and Valenzona v. Fair Shipping Corp.,[27] all of which applied the Crystal Shipping doctrine despite the fact that they were promulgated after Vergara. Second, he claims that the medical assessment of his personal physician, to the effect that the former’s disability is permanent and total, should be accorded more weight than that issued by the company-designated physician.[28] Montierro also raises in his petition the issue of attorney’s fees, which he believes he is entitled to as he was compelled to litigate. ISSUES The issues to be resolved are the following: (1) whether it is the 120-day rule or the 240-day rule that should apply to this case; (2) whether it is the opinion of the company doctor or of the personal doctor of the seafarer that should prevail; and (3) whether Montierro is entitled to attorney’s fees. OUR RULING 120 day rule vs. 240 day rule The Court has already delineated the effectivity of the Crystal Shipping and Vergara rulings in the 2013 case Kestrel Shipping Co. Inc. v. Munar,[29] by explaining as follows: 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. Thus, based on Kestrel, if the maritime compensation complaint was filed prior to 6 October 2008, the 120-day rule applies; if, on the other hand, the complaint was filed from 6 October 2008 onwards, the 240-day rule applies. In this case, Montierro filed his Complaint on 3 December 2010, which was after the promulgation of Vergara on 6 October 2008. Hence, it is the 240-day rule that applies to this case, and not the 120-day rule. Montierro cannot rely on the cases that he cited, a survey of which reveals that all of them involved Complaints filed before 6 October 2008. Wallem Maritime Services[30] involved a Complaint for disability benefits filed on 26 November 1998. In Maersk Filipinas Crewing,[31] while the Decision did not mention the date the Complaint was filed, the LA’s Decision was rendered on 14 April 2008. Lastly, in Valenzona,[32] the Complaint was filed sometime before 31 January 2003. It thus comes as no surprise elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58779 4/9