6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly (b) settled jurisprudence on seafarers’ claims declaring that entitlement to full disability compensation is based on the loss of earning capacity and not on medical significance. [27] The petitioner claims that while the respondents never controverted the existence of the CBA, which was an addendum to the POEA SEC executed between the parties in this case, the NLRC and the CA failed to discuss the provisions therein in their respective decisions. Further, Article 12 of the CBA provides that regardless of the disability grading given to the petitioner, he should be entitled to a compensation of US$80,000.00 as a result of the loss of his profession. The petitioner also points out that from his repatriation on August 18, 2006 up to the time the instant petition was filed in 2009, he had remained unfit to work as a seaman after losing two-thirds of his trunk’s lifting power. Anent the petitioner’s alleged refusal to undergo surgery, he asserts that he was not solely at fault as Dr. Alegre himself had adopted the orthopedic recommendation of conservative management with physical therapy.[28] The petitioner also reiterates that permanent and total disability does not mean absolute helplessness, but mere inability to do substantially all material acts necessary for the pursuit of any occupation for remuneration in substantially customary and usual manner. Because of his back injury resulting from the accident, he is rendered permanently unfit for sea service.[29] In their Comment,[30] the respondents argue that Department Order No. 4 and Memorandum Circular No. 9, series of 2000, otherwise known as the POEA Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On Board OceanGoing Vessels, shall apply since the employment contract executed between the parties expressly stipulated so. Under Section 32 of the POEA SEC, Grade 8 disability entitles the seafarer to a compensation equivalent to US$16,795.00 or 33.59% of US$50,000.00.[31] Further, the petitioner belatedly sought the opinion of Dr. Garduce four months after Dr. Alegre had made a disability assessment. The petitioner did so as a mere afterthought. [32] Besides, while the findings of Dr. Alegre may be contested, the petitioner should have indicated facts or evidence in the records to refute the same. The petitioner failed in this respect. Thus, Dr. Garduce’s medical opinion, which was arrived at after a day’s observation, cannot override the careful assessment of Dr. Alegre, who had monitored the petitioner’s condition in a span of six months.[33] Ruling of the Court The instant petition is partially meritorious. There is no dispute that the petitioner’s injury was work-related and that he is entitled to disability compensation. The questions now posed before this Court essentially relate to what are the applicable provisions to determine the (a) petitioner’s degree of disability, and (b) amount of compensation he is entitled to. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58964 6/18