6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly opinion of an independent physician, who came up with a Grade 6 disability rating. "An employee's disability becomes permanent and total [only 1)] when so declared by the company-designated physician, or, [2)] in case of absence of such a declaration either of fitness or permanent total disability, upon the lapse of the 120- or 240-day treatment periods, while the employee's disability continues and he is unable to engage in gainful employment during such period, and the company-designated physician fails to arrive at a definite assessment of the employee's fitness or disability."[60] The "mere lapse of the 120-day period itself does not automatically warrant the payment of permanent total disability benefits."[61] "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." [62] Since the company-designated physician, Dr. Alegre, arrived at an assessment that respondent's disability rating was only a Grade 11 prior to the expiration of the maximum 240-day period prescribed, then there is no permanent total disability to speak of. The appellate court erred in not considering that the mere lapse of the 120day period itself does not automatically warrant the payment of permanent total disability benefits, as said period may be extended up to 240 days. Moreover, pursuant to Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, the parties should have secured the opinion of a third doctor jointly appointed by them, whose decision shall be final and binding. However, this procedure was not observed, and instead, respondent went on to file his labor complaint. Such misstep should prove costly for him. In Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. v. Dumadag,[63] it was held that - We are confronted, once again, with the question of whose disability assessment should prevail in a maritime disability claim - the fit-to-work assessment of the company-designated physician or the contrary opinion of the seafarer's chosen physicians that he is no longer fit to work. A related question immediately follows - how are the conflicting assessments to be resolved? xxxx The POEA-SEC and the CBA govern the employment relationship between Dumadag and the petitioners. The two instruments are the law between them. They are bound by their terms and conditions, particularly in relation to this case, the mechanism prescribed to determine liability for a disability benefits claim. In Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. Velasquez, the Court said: "The POEA Contract, of which the parties are both signatories, is the law between them and as such, its provisions bind both of them." Dumadag, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61305 16/25