6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly was rendered after close monitoring of respondent's condition, should have been accorded probative weight by the labor tribunals, rather than the pronouncement of Dr. Pascual, who examined respondent only once and who is not even a specialist in urological disorders. Our Ruling The Court finds merit in the Petition. The filing of respondent's complaint was premature. Respondent is not entitled to total and permanent disability compensation. We find serious error in both the rulings of the NLRC and CA that respondent's disability became permanent and total on the ground that the certification of the companydesignated physician was issued more than 120 days after respondent's medical repatriation. As correctly argued by petitioners, the 120-day rule has already been clarified in the case of Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.,[26] where it was declared that the 120-day rule cannot be simply applied as a general rule for all cases in all contexts. Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code provides that: Art. 192. Permanent total disability. – x x x (c) The following permanent: disabilities shall be deemed total and (1) Temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than one hundred twenty days, except as otherwise provided for in the Rules; The Rule referred to in this Labor Code provision is Section 2, Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation (AREC) implementing Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code, which states: Sec. 2. Period of Entitlement – (a) The income benefit shall be paid beginning on the first day of such disability. If caused by an injury or sickness it shall not be paid longer than 120 consecutive days except where such injury or sickness still requires medical attendance beyond 120 days but not to exceed 240 days from onset of disability in which case benefit for temporary total disability shall be paid. However, the System may declare the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64152 5/11