6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly is not compensable or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-ofchoice and the third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and declared him unfit to work; (g) The company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and (h) The company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of said periods. [25] In this case, when Gepanaga filed his complaint with the arbitration office on March 25, 2009, he had yet to consult his own physician, Dr. Villa. Indeed, the Court has observed that when Gepanaga filed his complaint, he was armed only with the belief that he had yet to fully recover from his injured finger because of the incident that occurred on board the M.V. Melbourne Highway. It was only on June 9, 2009, a few days before he filed his position paper on June 15, 2009, that Gepanaga sought the services of Dr. Villa. It bears pointing out that even worse than the case in Dumadag, Gepanaga’s personal physician examined him for only one (1) day, that is, on June 9, 2009, two and a half months (2 ½) after he had filed his claim for permanent disability benefits. Furthermore, the medical certificate issued by Dr. Villa after examining the respondent failed to state the basis of his assessment and conclusion of permanent disability, more than three (3) months after the respondent was declared fit to work by Dr. Cruz, the company-designated physician. Let it be stressed that the 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.[26] Both law and evidence must be on his side. For these reasons, and without sufficient evidence to support the respondent’s ancillary claims for sick wages, damages and attorney’s fees, the same are denied. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The September 17, 2012 Decision and the March 14, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115186 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The respondent’s complaint for permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, damages and attorney’s fees is dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,* Del Castillo, and Leonen, JJ., concur. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59123 9/11