6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly of a lawyer in order to vindicate his rights as there was no assurance that the petitioners would have granted his just demands had the matter not gone through the legal process. 4. Finally, the inclusion of Galvez and Alidio as parties in the case is called for because they are responsible officers of an agency engaged in the hiring of ship manpower; as such, they are solidarity liable with the agency and the foreign employer for his disability compensation claim under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act. The Court's Ruling "Entitlement to disability benefits by seamen on overseas work is a matter governed, not only by medical findings but, by law and by contract," and so the Court declared in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., et al.[17] Guided by this Court pronouncement, we find merit in the petition. Based on the medical findings, the governing law—the POEA-SEC—and the contract between the parties—the TCC-FA—as well as applicable jurisprudence, we hold that the respondent Cabatay is entitled only to disability benefits as awarded by the NLRC. The medical Jindings/Cabatay's disability assessment On record, upon his arrival in Manila on January 8, 2010, following his medical repatriation, Cabatay was immediately referred to Dr. Tay, the company-designated physician, for examination and treatment. He was under Dr. Tay's medical care and management for six months or until June 9, 2010, when she gave him a combined 36% disability assessment. All this time, he underwent several tests, a CT scan, audiometry and MRI, as well as therapy sessions, at the petitioners' expense. Cabatay did not object to Dr. Tay's assessment, yet he filed a claim for permanent total disability compensation, which the labor arbiter granted declaring that he was entitled to fiill disability benefits because he had lost opportunities for his employment/profession. On appeal, the NLRC set aside the arbiter's decision and relied on Dr. Tay's disability assessment "in the absence of any substantial proof in support of complainant's bare allegation of loss of profession."[18] The CA, in turn, upheld the arbiter's award, holding that since Cabatay was "disabled continuously for more than 120 days, he is considered permanently disabled," and the "CBA provides that the seafarer is entitled to full benefits even if he suffered less than 50% of the total disability under the schedule so long as he is no longer fit for sea duty."[19] The POEA-SEC; the TCC-FA We find that the CA ruling disregarded relevant provisions of the POEA-SEC and the TCC-FA. This is a reversible error as we shall discuss below. As intimated earlier, the POEA-SEC and the TCC-FA govern Cabatay's employment with the petitioners. These two instruments are the law between the parties as the Court elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61603 5/10