6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly that the cases Montierro banks on followed the 120-day rule. Applying the 240-day rule to this case, we arrive at the same conclusion reached by the CA. Montierro’s treatment by the company doctor began on 4 June 2010. It ended on 3 January 2011, when the company doctor issued a “Grade 10” final disability assessment. Counting the days from 4 June 2010 to 3 January 2011, the assessment by the company doctor was made on the 213th day, well within the 240-day period. The extension of the period to 240 days is justified by the fact that Dr. Alegre issued an interim disability grade of “10” on 3 September 2010, the 91st day of Montierro’s treatment, which was within the 120-day period. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that Montierro’s condition cannot be deemed a permanent total disability. Company doctor vs. personal doctor Vergara also definitively settled the question how a conflict between two disability assessments — the assessment of the company-designated physician and that of the seafarer’s chosen physician — should be resolved.[33] In that case, the Court held that there is a procedure to be followed regarding the determination of liability for workrelated death, illness or injury in the case of overseas Filipino seafarers. The procedure is spelled out in the 2000 POEA-SEC, the execution of which is a sine qua non requirement in deployments for overseas work.[34] The procedure is as follows: when a seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board the vessel, his fitness for work shall be determined by the companydesignated physician. The physician has 120 days, or 240 days, if validly extended, to make the assessment. If the physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician, the opinion of a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer, whose decision shall be final and binding on them.[35] Vergara ruled that the procedure in the 2000 POEA-SEC must be strictly followed; otherwise, if not availed of or followed strictly by the seafarer, the assessment of the company-designated physician stands.[36] In this case, Montierro and Rickmers are covered by the provisions of the same 2000 POEA-SEC. It is the law between them. Hence, they are bound by the mechanism for determining liability for a disability benefits claim. Montierro, however, preempted the procedure when he filed on 3 December 2010 a Complaint for permanent disability benefits based on his chosen physician’s assessment, which was made one month before the company-designated doctor issued the final disability grading on 3 January 2011, the 213th day of Montierro’s treatment. Hence, for failure of Montierro to observe the procedure provided by the POEA-SEC, the assessment of the company doctor should prevail. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58779 5/9