6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly emphasized in Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc., v. Eulogio Dumadag.[20] Under the 2002 POEA-SEC, it is the company-designated physician who declares/establishes the fitness to work or the degree of disability of a seafarer who is repatriated for medical reasons and needs further medical attention.[21] Thus, under Section 20 (B) 3, the seafarer is required to submit to a post-employment medical examination by the company-designated physician.[22] On the other hand, under the TCC-FA,[23] "The disability suffered by the Seafarer shall be determined by a doctor appointed mutually by the Owners/Managers and the ITF, and the Owners/Managers shall provide disability compensation to the Seafarer in accordance with the percentage specified in the table below xxx"[24] The TCC-FA also provides for a Compensation Scale under its Annex 3 upon which Dr. Tay, the companydesignated physician, based her assessment of Cabatay's disability. There is no question that there had been compliance with Section 20 (B) of the POEASEC in regard to Cabatay's post-employment medical examination. It is also established that he went through an intensive treatment, including special medical procedures and therapy sessions, under the care and management of Dr. Tay for six months or for 180 days within the 240-day extended period allowed under the rules implementing the employees compensation law.[25] At the conclusion of his treatment and therapy program, Dr. Tay gave him a 36% disability assessment pursuant to the compensation schedule under the TCC-FA. As Cabatay himself admitted, he did not dispute Dr. Tay's findings and neither did he offer a contrary finding. The NLRC therefore committed no grave abuse of discretion when it awarded Cabatay disability compensation in accordance with Dr. Tay's assessment, there being no disagreement on the assessment. Be this as it may, we are not unmindful of the fact that under the TCC-FA, the seafarer's disability shall be determined by a doctor mutually appointed by the employer (owner/manager) and the union (ITF). There was no such determination in this case, either under Section 19.2 as cited above, or Section 19.3 under the TCC-FA as invoked by the petitioners. The absence of a disability assessment by a doctor chosen by the parties, however, will not invalidate Dr. Tay's assessment, not only because Cabatay accepted Dr. Tay's findings, but also because he refused the petitioners' proposal that his medical condition be referred to a mutually appointed doctor for determination.[26] Cabatay never denied this particular submission of the petitioners. The 120-day rule; loss of employment/profession In reversing the NLRC decision, the CA declared that while Cabatay's treatment was extended (up to a maximum of 240 days),[27] it did not negate the fact that he was disabled continuously for more than 120 days and therefore permanently disabled,[28] especially when Dr. Tay had not declared Cabatay fit to work within the extended period. This is a misappreciation of the significance of the 120-day rule and the 240day extended period as clarified in applicable rulings of the Court. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61603 6/10