6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In Vergara v. Hammonia,[29] the Court explained what to expect within this period in terms of the seafarer's medical condition, thus: 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 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 medical condition. (underscoring and emphasis ours) The question of why no fit-to-work declaration was issued by Dr. Tay is answered by her combined 36% disability assessment for Cabatay. The CA thus erred in holding that since his disability went beyond 120 days, he had become permanently and totally disabled. Again, in Vergara, the Court stressed: "This declaration of a permanent total disability after the initial 120 days of temporary disability cannot, however, be simply lifted and applied as a general rule for all cases in all contexts. The specific context of the application should be considered, as we must do in the application of all rulings and even of the law and of the implementing regulations."[30] Also, in Splash Philippines, Inc. v. Ruizo, the Court said that the 120-day rule "cannot be used as a cure-all formula for all maritime compensation cases. Its application must depend on the circumstances of the case, including especially compliance with the parties' contractual duties and obligations as laid down in the POEA-SEC and/or their CBA, if one exists."[31] Since Dr. Tay had timely and duly made a disability assessment for Cabatay, the CA likewise erred in affirming LA Cueto's opinion that he is entitled to permanent total disability benefits because he had lost his employment/profession. Neither can Cabatay's submission that he had lost his profession in contemplation of the TCC-FA prevail over Dr. Tay's assessment, not only because he did not dispute the assessment, but also because he did not go through the procedure under the agreement on how a disability is determined, permanent total or otherwise. Needless to say, a seafarer cannot claim full disability benefits on his mere say-so in complete disregard of the POEA-SEC and the CBA, which are, to reiterate, the law between the parties and which they are duty bound to observe.[32] And so it must be in Cabatay's case, especially when he refused the petitioners' offer[33] that his medical condition be referred to a mutually appointed doctor under Section 19.3 of the TCC-FA, to determine whether, despite Dr. Tay's combined 36% disability assessment under Annex 3 of the agreement, he is permanently unfit for further sea service. Absent such elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61603 7/10