5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly permanent total disability benefits. The CA applied the 120-day Presumptive Disability Rule. It took note of the fact that Michael had exceeded the period within which he was initially considered on temporary total disability. The CA brushed aside the conclusion of the NLRC that the award of disability benefits was unjustified in the absence of disability grading. It stated that the absence of any grading at the onset of Michael’s disability or absence of any assessment by Dr. Cruz that he was still unfit to work was of no moment, as disability should be understood more on the loss of earning capacity rather than on the medical significance of the disability. The CA cited the case of Palisoc v. Easways Marine, Inc.,[11] where even in the absence of an official finding by the company-designated physician that the seafarer suffered a disability and was unfit for sea duty, the seafarer may still be declared to be suffering from a permanent disability if he was unable to work for more than 120 days. It added that what clearly determined the seafarer’s entitlement to permanent disability benefits was his inability to work for more than 120 days. It emphasized that in Valenzona v. Fair Shipping Corporation (Valenzona),[12] the seafarer’s disability was still considered permanent and total despite declaration by the company-designated physician of the seafarer’s fitness to work as such declaration was made belatedly, that is, more than 120 days after repatriation. The decretal portion of the CA decision reads: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 31 March 2011 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and its Resolution dated 31 May 2011 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Private respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay petitioner: a) permanent total disability benefits of US$ 89,100.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment; and b) attorney’s fees of ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award or its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment. SO ORDERED.[13] Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the said decision, but their motion was denied by the CA in its Resolution, dated September 19, 2013. Hence, petitioners filed this petition anchored on the following ERRORS: I. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW IN APPLYING THE 120 DAYS RULE DESPITE JURISPRUDENCE ABANDONING THE SAME. II. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW IN DISREGARDING THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN WAS RESTRAINED FROM ISSUING elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58642 3/12