5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly be considered or shall constitute total and permanent disability.” grading, therefore, constitutes only as temporary total disability. Any other Considering that the POEA-SEC embodies the terms and conditions governing the employment of Filipino seafarers onboard ocean-going vessels, it is about time that the schedule of disability compensation under Section 32 is seriously observed. A step towards this direction had already been taken by way of the Court’s clarificatory Resolution[42] dated February 12, 2007 in Crystal Shipping where we declared that admittedly, the POEA-SEC (1996) does not measure disability in terms of number of days but by gradings only.[43] Be this as it may, Ruizo would not still be entitled to the compensation corresponding to the grading given to him by Dr. Vicaldo because he abandoned his treatment with Dr. Cruz who, for his failure to return for further treatment, was not given the opportunity to issue a disability assessment, a mandatory requirement under the POEA-SEC or even under the supposed CBA between him and Taiyo. D. Is there an AMOSUP/IMEC TCCC CBA between the parties? The CA’s conclusion shows that it disregarded evidence patently on record – Ruizo’s employment was not covered by a CBA. In his comment[44] dated May 3, 2012, Ruizo stated that he obtained a copy of the CBA during his employment with the petitioners, yet he submitted before LA Cuyuca only a one-page unsigned copy of the CBA.[45] If he obtained a copy of the CBA while still in employment with the petitioners, how could he have submitted in evidence a one-page copy of the document? Further, while he later submitted a copy of the purported CBA,[46] it bore no indication of who his employer was as the space reserved for the employer was blank. Still further, the copy he submitted was for 2004; it already expired when he signed his POEA contract with the petitioners on February 4, 2005.[47] LA Cuyuca was correct when she declared that the one-page copy of the CBA Ruizo submitted was insufficient to prove its existence. But more importantly, even if the CBA existed, it cannot be the basis of an award of disability benefits to Ruizo for reasons above discussed. All told, we find merit in the petition. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are set aside. The complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez, and Reyes,* JJ., concur. * Designated as Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe per Special Order No. 1650 dated March 13, 2014. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56718 8/11