5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz on August 22, 2006, well within the 240-day period from the date of the respondent’s repatriation on February 8, 2006. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to disability benefits.[29] The petitioners, moreover, pointed out that in case of conflict between the companydesignated doctor and a claimant’s private doctor, a third opinion should be obtained. Otherwise, the assessment of the company designated doctor is binding.[30] In the Resolution[31] dated June 3, 2009, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration of the petitioners. According to the CA, the NLRC resolution was issued on November 29, 2007 while the Vergara ruling was rendered on October 6, 2008. Thus, following the prospective application of the rules, the case of Vergara cannot be applied in the instant case. Instead, the prevailing jurisprudence on the matter is Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad[32] considering that the claim of the respondent was filed on July 6, 2006 prior to Vergara. In Crystal Shipping, a medically repatriated seafarer’s continuous inability to work beyond 120 days from his sign-off from the vessel is construed as a permanent disability, without any qualification.[33] Thus, the respondent is entitled to permanent disability benefits. Unable to agree, the petitioners filed the instant petition raising the following: A. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS JUST BECAUSE HIS INJURY RENDERED HIM INCAPABLE OF PERFORMING HIS WORK FOR MORE THAN 120 DAYS. B. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES TO THE RESPONDENT.[34] The Court’s Ruling The petition is devoid of merit. The Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the factual findings of the LA, as affirmed by the CA. Settled is the rule that the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. In labor cases, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. In disability claims, as in the case at bar, the employee bears the onus to prove by substantial evidence his own positive assertions. [35] In the instant case, the respondent went through the PEME. While there was a notation of “pulmonary fibrosis right lower lung with calcified benign nodules cleared by the pulmonary specialist”[36] in said report, he was declared fit for sea duties. The elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56832 5/10