6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly since the company-designated physician had already made an assessment of his disability, which should be respected, pursuant to Section 20 (B) 3 of the POEA-SEC. Lastly, the petitioners reiterate that Cabatay is not entitled to damages and attorney's fees because they have not committed any act of bad faith in dealing with him. From the moment he was repatriated, they point out, he was taken care of, and was referred to the company doctor for examination and treatment until he attained maximum cure. Cabatay's Position In his comment[15] dated September 22, 2014, Cabatay prays for a dismissal of the petition for lack of merit, contending that: 1. His claim for full disability benefits had not been mooted even after he secured the execution of the $46,000.00 awarded by the NLRC. The ruling in Career Philippines Ship Management, Inc. v. Geronimo Madjus,[16] invoked by the petitioners, is not squarely applicable in his situation. In that case, the manning agency executed the judgment award in favor of the seafarer to prevent its imminent execution while it pursued its petition for certiorari with the CA. In the same case, the Court considered the Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment as an amicable settlement between the parties, which rendered the agency's petition for certiorari academic, thereby putting closure to the case; otherwise, it would place the seafarer at a disadvantage. The Court explained that while the agency had other remedies available to it, such as its petition for certiorari itself and eventually an appeal to the Court, the seafarer could no longer pursue other claims, including the award of interest that may accrue during the pendency of the case. In the present dispute, Cabatay points out, he was the one who enforced the NLRC award, without prejudice to his petition for certiorari before the CA. He simply moved for execution of the uncontested portion of the award, which is allowed under the NLRC rules of procedure; but unless he makes an unequivocal waiver of his right to pursue the case, the petitioners should not assume that he is giving up the balance of his claim. 2. He is entitled to full disability benefits. The TCC-FA, whose applicability the petitioners acknowledge, requires only that the seafarer is deprived of employment on account of an accident which occurred during his tour of duty, to be entitled to 100% compensation. Thus, all that he has to prove is the loss of his profession because of his disability. He insists that he has already lost his employment or his "profession." The company doctor's certification showed that he has a severe communication handicap, severe fracture of the spine, and impeded elevation of the arm at 90 degrees. Moreover, the petitioners themselves have not re-hired him. This is an indication, he submits, that he would no longer pass any pre-employment medical examination (P.E.M.E). 3. The award of attorney's fees to him is proper because he had to secure the services elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61603 4/10