4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly WHETHER OR NOT UNDER THE POEA CONTRACT THE INABILITY TO WORK FOR MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED TWENTY (120) DAYS IS TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY. III. WHETHER OR NOT, IN DISABILITY COMPENSATION CLAIMS, THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT REQUIRED UNDER THE POEA CONTRACT SHOULD BE LIGHTLY DISREGARDED ON MERE APPEAL TO THE LIBERALITY OF LAWS TOWARDS FILIPINO SEAFARERS.[36] Petitioners argue that Medel’s claims for disability benefits should be resolved by applying exclusively the provisions of the POEA SEC and the relevant jurisprudence interpreting the same, without resorting to the provisions of the Labor Code on disability benefits. Moreover, petitioners aver that the 1996 POEA SEC does not state that the mere lapse of 120 days automatically makes a seafarer permanently and totally disabled. In spite of the lapse of 120 days, petitioners posit that the entitlement to disability benefits would only come as a matter of course after the degree of the seafarer’s disability had been established, which assessment shall be made after the seafarer no longer responds to any medication or treatment. Thus, a seafarer is entitled to receive permanent total disability benefits only if the seafarer was declared by the company-designated physician to be suffering from a Grade 1 impediment. In the present case, petitioners insist that there was no disability assessment from the company-designated physician. On the contrary, Medel was even assessed to be physically fit to resume work. Petitioners then faulted the Court of Appeals for rejecting the certification of Dr. Ong that Medel was fit to resume sea duties. Petitioners insist that said doctor had personal knowledge of Medel’s condition, as he was a member of a team of physicians tasked to treat Medel. Petitioners maintain that Medel did not present evidence to prove his incapacity, which would entitle him to the disability benefits that he sought. After thoroughly reviewing the records of this case, the Court concludes and so declares that the instant petition lacks merit. The Applicable Law and Jurisprudence in the Award of Disability Benefits of Seafarers The application of the provisions of the Labor Code to the contracts of seafarers had long been settled by this Court. In Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission,[37] we emphatically declared that: The standard employment contract for seafarers was formulated by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under E.O. No. 247 to “secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure compliance therewith” and to “promote and protect the well-being of Filipino elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55119 7/14