7/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the findings of Oscares' attending physician in Seamen's Hospital, Dr. Magtira, and Dr. Pundavela that his disability was total and permanent.[20] After the Panel denied its motion for reconsideration,[21] respondents filed a petition for review[22] with the CA. Respondents argued that the Panel erred in applying the personal comfort doctrine since it only covers acts which are related to one's personal comfort for a brief momentary period, such as using the restroom. Oscares' act of singing while jumping is not included, is a purely personal and social function, and is not incidental to his work.[23] Further, Oscares should not have consulted private physicians before respondents' designated physician issued his final assessment. Thus, the former's assessment was premature.[24] Also, Dr. Cruz and NGC's assessment should prevail since they conducted a more adequate, thorough, and exhaustive examination on Oscares. Moreover, Oscares submitted the CBA only after it submitted its position paper. Worse, it is not even the CBA stated in the contract of employment. With respect to the costs of Oscares' treatment, respondents asserted that it presented proof of payment of sickness allowance, medical and transportation reimbursements. [25] On August 29, 2018, the CA granted the petition and reversed and set aside the decision of the panel of voluntary arbitrators. The CA held that Oscares' injury was not work-related, work-caused, or work-aggravated. It has no connection whatsoever to his official duties. Consequently, it is not compensable.[26] Oscares filed a motion for reconsideration,[27] but it was denied by the CA. As such, he filed a petition for review on certiorari before Us. First, Oscares argues that according to the case of Iloilo Dock & Engineering Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Commission, [28] when the employer pays for the employee's time from the moment that he leaves his home until he returns home, any accidents occurring during the employee's rest and recreation should be considered work-related. Seafarers are being paid from their embarkation on the vessel until their disembarkation. They must stay on board the vessel even during their rest and recreation. Consequently, any injury incurred by seafarers during their rest and recreation should be compensable as long as their actions are not contrary to law or that they intentionally inflicted injury on themselves. [29] Second, it is presumed that an injury was directly caused or rose out of the employment or was aggravated by it if it was established through evidence that the injury occurred in the course of employment. Oscares undoubtedly incurred his injury while he was in the course of his employment on the vessel. Hence, the presumption applies.[30] Third, respondents' designated physician failed to issue a categorical certification that Oscares was fit to work. The physician also failed to discuss the implication of his disability on his capacity to return to work. In fact, the assessment did not clarify Oscares' medical condition.[31] Due to respondents' failure to issue a final assessment in accordance with the law, Oscares is presumed to have total and permanent disability and is entitled to a Grade 1 disability rating. In any event, Oscares can no longer perform his former duties.[32] Fourth, respondents failed to respond to Oscares' offer to refer his case to a third physician. As such, Oscares cannot be faulted for filing the complaint without an opinion from a third doctor.[33] Also, the certification https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66954 3/11