11/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly other, as cited in TSM Shipping Phils., Inc., et al. v. Patiño:[37] As these provisions operate, the seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the company-designated physician within three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis and treatment. For the duration of the treatment but in no case to exceed 120 days, the seaman is on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to work. He receives his basic wage during this period until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is defined under the POEA Standard Employment Contract and by applicable Philippine laws. If the 120 days initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists. The seaman may of course also be declared fit to work at any time such declaration is justified by his medical condition.[38] (Emphasis Ours and italics in the original) In the case at bar, the petitioner failed to comply with the outlined, statutory process for a valid disability claim, despite the respondents' efforts to adhere to the same. The records show that the company-designated physician was in fact able to give an assessment[39] of the petitioner's illness within the allotted time, contrary to the petitioner's allegations that the respondents did not give a full report as to his condition. The Court finds as strange the petitioner's questioning the report of the company-designated physician, while at the same time utilizing that same report as basis for his contention that he is unfit for duty for approximately four months, in an attempt to show that his disability status exceeds the time allowed by law. Thus, there can be no other conclusion that the petitioner has accepted, at the absolute least, the completeness of the report of the company-designated physician, notwithstanding his own claim that his own chosen physician has rendered a finding contrary to that of the respondents and in support of the petitioner's own perceived view of his medical status. Aside from the foregoing, the Court finds as self-serving the petitioner's accusation that the assessment of the company-designated physician was insubstantial, especially considering that the petitioner himself did not cooperate fully in ensuring that the report would be as spotless as possible. The records reveal that the petitioner had refused to go back to the company-designated physician for further tests and instead spent almost one year out of the respondents' sights before filing the complaint. After declaring a finding that the petitioner was unfit for duty for approximately four months, the medical report stated that the petitioner was asked to come back on January 10, 2013 for re-evaluation, however, the respondents did not hear from him afterwards. They did not even know that the petitioner had consulted his own medical expert as the petitioner did not reach out until many months later, to file the instant case. While the petitioner claims he followed up with the respondents concerning his medication, he was unable to show any tangible proof that he did so, in the form of any correspondence with the respondents, in the absence of anything but his self-serving declaration, the Court is inclined to adhere to the respondents' version of the events https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65376 7/15