6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Under Section 20 (B) 3, par. 1 of the POEA-SEC,[28] it is the company-designated physician who determines the fitness to work or the degree of permanent disability of a seafarer who disembarks from the vessel for medical treatment. The AMOSUP CBA likewise provides that "the degree of disability which the employer, subject to this Agreement, is liable to pay shall be determined by a doctor appointed by the Employer."[29] The POEA-SEC, supplemented by the CBA, if one exists is the law between the parties[30] and must be given respect. In this light, the labor arbiter committed no error when he upheld the fit-to-work assessment of the companydesignated physician as it was in accordance with the law that governs Suarez's employment. The LA's reliance on the company doctors' assessment over that of Dr. Jacinto, Suarez's chosen physician, was justified not only by the governing law between the parties, but also by the time and resources spent and the effort exerted by the petitioners' physicians in the examination, treatment and management (including surgical procedures) of Suarez's medical condition until he was declared fit to work by the company urologist on May 10, 2011.[31] On the other hand, LA Panganiban noted that the medical certificate issued by Dr. Jacinto to Suarez on June 6, 2011[32] "shows that it was made without proof of any extensive examination having been conducted" and it was "evident that it was the first and only consultation made by the complainant" with Dr. Jacinto.[33] And if we may add, Dr. Jacinto made substantially the same finding as those of the company doctors that Suarez suffered from UJO. In this light, we just cannot accept Suarez's one-time consultation with Dr. Jacinto as a credible basis for his unfit-to-work certification. Third. The NLRC and CA's reliance on the 120-day rule for the award of permanent total disability compensation to Suarez is misplaced. In Splash Philippines, Inc., et al, v. Ronulfo G. Ruizo[34] the Court reiterated that the 120-day rule for the declaration of a permanent total disability laid down in earlier maritime compensation cases, the most prominent of which was Crystal Shipping, Inc., v. Natividad[35] had already been clarified or modified. Citing Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc,[36] the Court stressed that the degree of a seafarer's disability cannot be determined on the basis solely of the 120day rule or in total disregard of the seafarer's employment contract — executed in accordance with the POEA-SEC — the parties' CBA, if there is one, and Philippine law and rules in case of any unresolved dispute, claim or grievance arising out of or in connection with the POEA-SEC. Stated otherwise, the Court emphasized that the application of the 120-day rule must depend on the circumstances of the case, considering especially the parties' compliance with their contractual duties and obligations. In this case, Suarez was declared fit to work by Dr. Gatchalian 138 days after his repatriation, which was well within the extended 240-day period set by Rule X, Section 2, Book IV of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code[37] (the Rules on Employees elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60072 6/11