8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly could not be equated to a fit to work assessment, there is no proof, not even a suggestion, which would show that the company-designated physicians were biased in favor of the respondents. On the contrary, the respondents were able to show that the medical findings and fit to work certification by the company-designated physicians were duly supported by medical records. For the whole duration of De Vera's treatment, the companydesignated physicians issued a total of five medical reports stating in each of them the findings and the noted improvements on De Vera's medical condition. The companydesignated physicians also referred him to an orthopedic spine surgeon with whom he also had several consultations. De Vera also completed two sets of six physical therapy sessions for a total of 12 sessions upon the recommendation of the orthopedic spine surgeon. After completing the physical therapy sessions and even after being cleared by the orthopedic surgeon, the company-designated physicians recommended that he undergo physical capacity evaluation, which De Vera completed without issue yielding normal results. Clearly, the assessment by the company-designated physicians was duly supported by ample evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to disregard their assessment. Further, even on the assumption that the third doctor's medical opinion may be dispensed with, the company-designated physicians' fit to work assessment would still prevail as the same is more credible than Dr. Garcia's assessment. Jurisprudence dictates that the assessment of the company-designated physician, such as Dr. Agustin and Dr. Gutay, which was arrived at after several months of treatment and medical evaluation, is more reliable than the assessment of the seafarer's physician, such as Dr. Garcia, who examined the seafarer only once.[44] De Vera's insistence that he should be considered as totally and permanently disabled as he is now unable to earn wages as a seafarer could not also be sustained. Jurisprudence holds that a seafarer's inability to resume his work after the lapse of more than 120 days from the time he suffered an injury and/or illness is not a magic wand that automatically warrants the grant of total and permanent disability benefits in his favor. It cannot be used as a cure-all formula for all maritime compensation cases. [45] Additionally, it must be stressed that Section 20(A)(6) of the 2010 POEA-SEC now expressly provides that the "disability shall be based solely on the disability gradings provided under Section 32 of this Contract, and shall not be measured or determined by the number of days a seafarer is under treatment or the number of days in which sickness allowance is paid." This express mandate of Section 20(A)(6) of the POEA-SEC have been applied by the Court in the cases of Splash Philippines, Inc. v. Ruizo,[46] Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Simbajon,[47] and Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. v. Conag.[48] In Scanmar, the Court clarified that the disability grading the seafarer received, whether from the company-designated physician or from the third independent physician, if the medical findings of the physician chosen by the seafarer conflicts with that of the company-designated doctor, should be the basis of the declaration of disability.[49] In sum, the Court holds that De Vera is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits due to lack of cause of action and in view of his failure to refute the companyhttps://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65369 10/14