When the case was brought to this Court, private respondents argued that petitioner erred in applying the provision of permanent total disability under the Labor Code and the cases under the Employees Compensation Commission because the case involves a contractual claim under the 1996 POEA-SEC. The Court ruled in favor of petitioner. The Court affirmed the application of the Labor Code concept of permanent disability to the case of seafarers. The Court held that [t]he standard employment contract for seafarers was formulated by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under E.O. No. 247 ‛to secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure compliance therewith and ‛to promote and protect the well-being of Filipino workers overseas.[12] The Court ruled that a contract of labor is impressed with public interest; hence, the New Civil Code expressly subjects it to the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.[13] The Court declared:   Thus, the Court has applied the Labor Code concept of permanent total disability to the case of seafarers. In Philippine Transmarine Carriers v. NLRC, seaman Carlos Nietes was found to be suffering from congestive heart failure and cardiomyopathy and was declared as unfit to work by the companyaccredited physician. The Court affirmed the award of disability benefits to the seaman, citing ECC v. Sanico, GSIS v. CA, and Bejerano v. ECC that disability should not be understood more on its medical significance but on the loss of earning capacity. Permanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of similar nature that [he] was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of [his] mentality and attainment could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness. It likewise cited Bejerano v. ECC, that in a disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of ones earning capacity.   The same principles were cited in the more recent case of Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad. In addition, the Court cited GSIS v. Cadiz and Ijares v. CA that permanent disability is the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body.[14]     Hence, the Court of Appeals erred in failing to apply the definition of permanent total disability under Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code in the present case on the