6/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly physician's assessment that should determine the extent of respondent's disability, i.e., disability grading of Grade 10 for 50% loss of vision of one eye;[34] (3) that attorney's fees are not to be awarded in the absence of gross and evident bad faith.[35] These were already proffered, exhaustively discussed, and settled before the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and the CA. As correctly ruled by the CA, Dr. Pile, the company-designated physician, issued the Medical Certification on September 22, 2014 containing a partial disability assessment of respondent.[36] However, the certification merely stated "[d]isability Grade 10 for (50%) loss of vision of one eye", but without an explanation or description of the disability.[37] Further, the certification reads, "[p]resently Visual Acuity on the right eye has improved up to 20/40 only. Left eye is still 20/20. Although vision on the right eye has remarkably improved, it is still inadequate for his position."[38] Following the earlier ruling of the Court, in the absence of a definite assessment of respondent's fitness or disability, or failure to show how the partial disability assessment was arrived at, or without any evidence to support the assessment, then this is akin to a declaration of permanent and total disability.[39] Further, well-settled is the rule that a partial disability signifying a continuing capacity to perform one's customary task is undeniably incompatible with the finding that a seafarer is unfit for duty.[40] In the case, Dr. Pile's assessment of respondent's disability as partial or Grade 10 for the 50% loss of vision of one eye is clearly in conflict with the declaration in the same medical certification that respondent is "still inadequate for his position." In other words, this should already be considered as "akin to a declaration of permanent and total disability." The CA ruled, thus: The inconsistency between the partial disability assessment – which should render respondent still fit for his position – and the declaration that he is no longer "adequate" for his position cannot be reconciled, compounded by the fact that the said contradiction is contained in one Medical Certification. Therefore, the only just and legal conclusion that could be made from the inability of a seafarer to return to his previous position, which renders him without a steady source of income, is a declaration of permanent and total disability amounting to Grade 1 Disability under the POEA-SEC.[41] As to the issue that the award of sickness allowance is without basis, the Court affirms the ruling of the CA that the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators correctly found that petitioners failed to pay respondent's sickness allowance pursuant to the CBA of the parties. The only defense raised by petitioners is that the sums of money due to respondent, including the questioned sickness allowance, have already been duly paid the latter.[42] However, the Court finds that petitioners failed to support this defense of payment. Hence, the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators' award of the sickness allowance in favor of respondent is hereby upheld. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66746 7/11